I apologize for derailing the discussion of the other thread, but I'm curious about several posted views on the issue.

Cass has posted it is illegal as bigamy, which is true, but isn't it as much a personal issue as other non-traditional arrangements? So far as I know the lobby for polygamist rights isn't very powerful, but I don't understand the difference between this and gay marriage as far as the aclu is concerned.

CharlesMartel posted a desire to add several women to his marriage and seems to suggest it may be bad for children. Which I don't really understand how to reconcile.

Iamme and Abraxas seem to offer the name and legal protections of marriage to any people desiring it, which I'm not sure I understand. Is this an intentional shaping of society like a super slowmo Cultural Revolution, is it disinterest, or do I miss the point entirely?

I by no means mean to limit the discussion to these posters or views, I'd appreciate any insight.

Interesting topic tadpol.  Especially considering the choices some might personally. If one goes back to some of Charlie's points you may find it's one more issue that is all about the money with his discussion of DOMA.  Since bigamy is illegal, though there remain many living in polygamous families such as those in TX, AZ and UT, specifically among those who
follow Mormon beliefs even though illegal, how many with single mothers, though the father is hardly absent, are collecting AFDC.  Maybe the ability to also do so is Charlie's basis for
wanting to acquire additional "spouses?"  In many cultures, primarily outside western ones, polygamy is still the norm. And even in some where it is banned, it is quite acceptable for
some to have a "second" wife though they are never officially married.  Hardly, unusual as i learned during the years I lived as a family member of a military member in Japan.

Well, considering the state is the front man for the people I'm not sure I follow. The state has morality in other places without dispute, how does a line form here?

As long as they meet certain requirements, like age, species and separate immediate families? I don't really understand why government is dealing in marriage, but if we allow a foot in the door I don't get where else we should stop it.


Is this true? I thought that required some sort of oversight and I'd figure polygamists would like to avoid attention. That is very interesting. But I'm not sure what that means, so some people are scamming us, I understand that happens with a lot of programs and I'd bet pretty hard that polygamists don't account for 1% of AFDC fraud. Though I'm not sure how one would get an objective estimate of it.

ok. I've heard of such things, but they way other people's deal with things isn't a precedent I'd really count on.



I hope you mean something more clever than god makes marriages. Marriage licenses existing and judges doing weddings is what's being discussed.

I only say it should be legal because I see no basis for it to be illegal.

I believe marriage should remain unchanged. Marriage should remain as it is, defined by God, as a sacred bond between a man and six swim suit models. What's wrong with that?



Ahk

That's because marriage and monogamy are not natural to the species. Marriage origniated as a property agreement. "I give my daughter and 15 cows and ten acres for you to have and to hold and cement an alliace between my village and yours. When there was no property changing hands no marriage was necessary.

It's about CHILDREN, oh clueless ones.

polygamy is allowed and practiced in the Three Religions and I can prove it by texts.