Why is Polygamous Marriage "Wrong"?

[JoeB131]

They will argue that 18 years is too old for consent. First they will lower the age of consent to 16, then to 14 then to puberty. This is what they will do. It is very predictable. They will incrementally "normalize" all forms of sexual deviancy.

Ummm.. not really.

If anything, the law has increased the age of consent to marriage, not decreased it. In the 19th century, it used to be very common for 14 year olds to get married (albeit usually to other 14 year olds after a pregnancy).

There's really no movement to lower the marriage age. In fact, women are putting off marriage until they are older and older.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2010 — Infoplease.com

Gay activists like Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar are pushing to lower the age of consent.

We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?

Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.

 

[usmcstinger]

Once a state redefines marriage to be also between two men and two women, they open the flood gates to any person's belief of what constitutes marriage.

It should be interesting to see how a state that recognizes gay marriage deals with any other type of marriage. How could a state not legalize a marriage between two men and one women and /or marriage between one man and two woman? Believe me the definition of marriage could get even more bazar.
two women

 

[garyganu]

Ummm.. not really.

If anything, the law has increased the age of consent to marriage, not decreased it. In the 19th century, it used to be very common for 14 year olds to get married (albeit usually to other 14 year olds after a pregnancy).

There's really no movement to lower the marriage age. In fact, women are putting off marriage until they are older and older.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2010 — Infoplease.com

Gay activists like Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar are pushing to lower the age of consent.

We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?

Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.

Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.

 

[Ava]

See the poll

I don't judge it to be right or wrong and the one and only reality show I like to watch is called Sister Wives. Kody Brown, et al. and their 17 kids have really grown on me. I like the relationship I perceive the family to have. If gay marriage becomes legal, polygamy will be the next challenge to the courts.. I would be concerned with the impact that the inevitable inbreeding would have on a community and elsewhere.

Not everybody is going to want to live that lifestyle, so I don't see it as any threat to the traditional marriage of man and woman.

 

[JoeB131]

Once a state redefines marriage to be also between two men and two women, they open the flood gates to any person's belief of what constitutes marriage.

So?

It should be interesting to see how a state that recognizes gay marriage deals with any other type of marriage. How could a state not legalize a marriage between two men and one women and /or marriage between one man and two woman? Believe me the definition of marriage could get even more bazar.
two women

again, so what?

So let's say you had group marriages (incidently, a concept that Heinlein explored in the novel Friday.) Again, I think this might be a bit of a problem in that human beings are by nature to jealous, but it would hardly be the end of the world.

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, how about this as a secular argument against changing the definition of marriage?

We have evolved as a society to have the cultural norms we have had up till about 1960. Against some very incredible odds we managed to survive against a very harsh environment (compared to Europe at the time) and even thrive. By 1940, the United States had the majority of industry in the world and we were the decivie push in defeating the Germans in Two World Wars while over coming a Great Depression in the latter war.

But rather than leave our society basically the same with some tweaks here and there, like Womens Sufferage and ending Jim Crow, the social re-Engineers have pursued further changes that impact the most fundamental institutions of our nation. While we have the advantage of the world largest economy, military and technological advancement, we have begun to think of our national culture not in terms of what will help us to survive, but what is 'nicest' (in a Mr Rogers Neighborhood sort of way) to each individual no matter how bizare or deviant thier behavior maybe.

To compare the situation to early attempts to modify our environment and discovered that we inflicted harm on ourselves that was not apparent at the time, it seems to me that our leaders know not what secondary and tertiary affects these grand schemes they entertain may have on the strength of our nation. We already see demographic growth rates falling, the total of our nation only held up by large hispanic immigration. We see our financial system in chaos and on the verge of a nother HUGE collapse. We have spent billions in tax payer funds and shed thousands of limbs and lives propping up two nations that we tried to engineer from thin air to ape Western democratic behavior though the largest segments of these populations have made it clear that they dont want much if not most of the changes we have forced on them.

The biggest broad categorical effect of this redesign of institutions like marriage and who we are as a nation is that it introduces chaos. No one knows what to expect next. No one knows what is off limits or off the table for consideration. Each person begins to think primarily of how these things will affect them personally and their family and the scope of their concern contracts to little more than that, and most feel little or no connection to each other as a community or nation.

The biggest flaw to redifining marriage specifically and other behavioral norms is that it destroys the social normalcy that reminds us that we are part of a larger community. That sense of being part of a greater good is vital for any nation to endure, and we are simply tossing our cultural baby out with the bathwater.

When adversity returns and we are no longer the richest, the strongest, the most advanced and most powerful but see the world filled with rivals and competitors that seem to do things with far more efficiency and purpose, most of us will then realize the true value of what we have been sacrificing in order to feel we are part of a secular culture that is based on hedonism, greed, and narciscism.

But then it will be too late as these things take generations upon generations to produce and we will be without recourse except to go into a Byzantine decline, slowly trading territory, technology and wealth to stave off the inevitable and final collapse that we brought onto ourselves by rejecting social norms established in almost every human tribe for millenia.

 

[garyganu]

OK, how about this as a secular argument against changing the definition of marriage?

We have evolved as a society to have the cultural norms we have had up till about 1960. Against some very incredible odds we managed to survive against a very harsh environment (compared to Europe at the time) and even thrive. By 1940, the United States had the majority of industry in the world and we were the decivie push in defeating the Germans in Two World Wars while over coming a Great Depression in the latter war.

But rather than leave our society basically the same with some tweaks here and there, like Womens Sufferage and ending Jim Crow, the social re-Engineers have pursued further changes that impact the most fundamental institutions of our nation. While we have the advantage of the world largest economy, military and technological advancement, we have begun to think of our national culture not in terms of what will help us to survive, but what is 'nicest' (in a Mr Rogers Neighborhood sort of way) to each individual no matter how bizare or deviant thier behavior maybe.

To compare the situation to early attempts to modify our environment and discovered that we inflicted harm on ourselves that was not apparent at the time, it seems to me that our leaders know not what secondary and tertiary affects these grand schemes they entertain may have on the strength of our nation. We already see demographic growth rates falling, the total of our nation only held up by large hispanic immigration. We see our financial system in chaos and on the verge of a nother HUGE collapse. We have spent billions in tax payer funds and shed thousands of limbs and lives propping up two nations that we tried to engineer from thin air to ape Western democratic behavior though the largest segments of these populations have made it clear that they dont want much if not most of the changes we have forced on them.

The biggest broad categorical effect of this redesign of institutions like marriage and who we are as a nation is that it introduces chaos. No one knows what to expect next. No one knows what is off limits or off the table for consideration. Each person begins to think primarily of how these things will affect them personally and their family and the scope of their concern contracts to little more than that, and most feel little or no connection to each other as a community or nation.

The biggest flaw to redifining marriage specifically and other behavioral norms is that it destroys the social normalcy that reminds us that we are part of a larger community. That sense of being part of a greater good is vital for any nation to endure, and we are simply tossing our cultural baby out with the bathwater.

When adversity returns and we are no longer the richest, the strongest, the most advanced and most powerful but see the world filled with rivals and competitors that seem to do things with far more efficiency and purpose, most of us will then realize the true value of what we have been sacrificing in order to feel we are part of a secular culture that is based on hedonism, greed, and narciscism.

But then it will be too late as these things take generations upon generations to produce and we will be without recourse except to go into a Byzantine decline, slowly trading territory, technology and wealth to stave off the inevitable and final collapse that we brought onto ourselves by rejecting social norms established in almost every human tribe for millenia.

Well said. I agree completely.

 

[California Girl]

See the poll

Its not wrong as long as they are all consenting adults, if I want to marry both of my girlfriends it should be only my business.

You can do whatever you want.... as long as I ain't ******* paying for it. Currently, since people seem incapable of paying for their own ******* offspring, I don't support anyone having kids that they can't afford - regardless of their marital state.

Having said that, since I'm a Catholic, and the Bible is quite clear on the subject, that's good enough for me.

 

[JoeB131]

Gay activists like Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar are pushing to lower the age of consent.

We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?

Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.

Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.

Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.

Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.

 

[Avatar4321]

None of those reasons are sufficient.

The answer is because plural marriage is only valid when God commandments. When He doesn't command it, it's not allowed.

We are in a period where it's been prohibitted. Should God decide that we should engage in it for some reason, He can freely command otherwise.

The Bible is silent on God's will for man at the present. That's ultimately why the Bible is not enough. Because if the Bible is true, we have to live off every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God. We are told to seek wisdom and knowledge from His hands. If we deny that God continues to reveal His will, we are in essence, denying the message contained in the Bible.

God is the God of the Living, not the dead.

Ah, so Polygamy is only okay when your imaginary sky friend says it's okay.

"No, seriously, honey, I had a talk with God this morning, and he totally said I should marry our maid, too!"

"Now, Joseph Smith, there you go making stuff up again!"

"and God said I was a General, too... Weeeeeee"

No. Only when God says so. It requires Keys that most individuals dont have. But as I know you dont really care about that stuff, I wont say more on the subject.

And actually, no it wasnt God who made Joseph a General. That was the Illinois Legislature.

 

[JoeB131]

None of those reasons are sufficient.

The answer is because plural marriage is only valid when God commandments. When He doesn't command it, it's not allowed.

We are in a period where it's been prohibitted. Should God decide that we should engage in it for some reason, He can freely command otherwise.

The Bible is silent on God's will for man at the present. That's ultimately why the Bible is not enough. Because if the Bible is true, we have to live off every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God. We are told to seek wisdom and knowledge from His hands. If we deny that God continues to reveal His will, we are in essence, denying the message contained in the Bible.

God is the God of the Living, not the dead.

Ah, so Polygamy is only okay when your imaginary sky friend says it's okay.

"No, seriously, honey, I had a talk with God this morning, and he totally said I should marry our maid, too!"

"Now, Joseph Smith, there you go making stuff up again!"

"and God said I was a General, too... Weeeeeee"

No. Only when God says so. It requires Keys that most individuals dont have. But as I know you dont really care about that stuff, I wont say more on the subject.

And actually, no it wasnt God who made Joseph a General. That was the Illinois Legislature.

the scary thing is, this is probably what they teach you guys.

Although the charter authorizing the Nauvoo Legion created an independent militia, it could be used at the disposal of the state governor or the President of the United States as well as for the mayor of Nauvoo. Joseph Smith himself was Nauvoo's second mayor, and the Nauvoo court martial also appointed him as highest ranking officer of the Legion, a Lieutenant General. This rank is one step above Major General which most contemporary militias employed as their commanding rank. One motive for the higher rank was to prevent Smith from being tried in a court martial by officers of lesser rank.

Yup, so we had this whacky cult that was stockpiling arms and saying its leader was told by God that he could marry as many young girls as he wanted. Hmmm.... Where did we hear that one again?

Original, meet Extra-Crispy.

 

[chanel]

Most of these arguments against are based on religious precepts, but what about secular arguments for or against polygamy?

The Defense of Marriage Act - one man; one woman.

The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".[26] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[27] With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program." The other major categories the GAO identified were veteran's benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military. Among many specifics, it noted the rights of the widow or widower of the creator of a copyrighted work and certain financial disclosure requirements that include the spouses of members of Congress and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."[26]

 

[garyganu]

We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?

Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.

Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.

Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.

Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.

Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar and founder of GLSEN, condones adult sexual activity with young children.

I believe that Obama's "safe school czar" Keviin Jennings is a pedophile and a homosexual. He is trying to sexualize young children in the schools with sexually explicit reading materials and he gives speeches about "fisting" and other sex acts to children as young as 14 years old.

exerpt:

Mr. Jennings is the moral malefactor who gave a speech about how he merely advised a 15-year-old high-school sophomore who was having sex with an older man that, “I hope you knew to use a condom.” He knew the boy had met the adult in a bus-station restroom. Mr. Jennings also expressed admiration for Harry Hay, a notorious and extremely prominent supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” he said. Despite numerous requests to the Obama administration and Mr. Jennings, we have not received any answers to inquiries about these troubling issues.

Now revelations have surfaced that Mr. Jennings not only thought there was nothing wrong with boys having sex with older men (or girls having sex with older women), but he also played a role in promoting such relationships.
link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/08/obamas-buggery-czar/

excerpt:

President Obama has appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) — which sponsored the conference that produced the notorious “Fistgate” scandal (in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including “fisting&#8221 — to head up “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education. Jennings is a vicious, anti-religious bigot who once said “[F–k] ‘em” to the “Religious Right.” He supports promoting homosexuality and gender confusion as normative to even young students. He made that comment in a New York City church.
link: OBAMA APPOINTEE KEVIN JENNINGS: FISTING AND

Excerpt:

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.
link: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/200...om-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/

 

[rightwinger]

You are legally allowed to marry a woman and keep a mistress on the side. But if you try to be legally responsible to both you are breaking the law

 

[garyganu]

You are legally allowed to marry a woman and keep a mistress on the side. But if you try to be legally responsible to both you are breaking the law

You unwittingly described what is wrong with "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much less gays wanting to get married.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?

Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.

Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.

Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.

Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.

Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?

 

[JoeB131]

Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.

Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.

Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.

Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?

NAMBLA is a Urban myth....

 

[garyganu]

Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.

Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.

Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?

NAMBLA is a Urban myth....

excerpt from Wikipedia:

NAMBLA's website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end "the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships."[9] According to the NAMBLA, some of the organization's primary positions are:
Supporting and promoting man/boy relationships: they hold that when consensual these relationships are not harmful or child sexual abuse.[10] One study they cite is the controversial Rind et al. paper.[11]
Age-of-consent reform: what NAMBLA describes as "empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual."[9]

link: North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

You are legally allowed to marry a woman and keep a mistress on the side. But if you try to be legally responsible to both you are breaking the law

You unwittingly described what is wrong with "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much less gays wanting to get married.

We have always needed no fault divorce to handle the "you are an asshole and I don't want to stay married to you"

 

[rightwinger]

Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?

NAMBLA is a Urban myth....

excerpt from Wikipedia:

NAMBLA's website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end "the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships."[9] According to the NAMBLA, some of the organization's primary positions are:
Supporting and promoting man/boy relationships: they hold that when consensual these relationships are not harmful or child sexual abuse.[10] One study they cite is the controversial Rind et al. paper.[11]
Age-of-consent reform: what NAMBLA describes as "empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual."[9]

link: North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NAMBLA has almost no membership outside of a website. It exists mostly in the minds of rightwing fear mongers