Liberalism and Polygamy

[JayB]

The polygamy story is nothing new, but the raid in Texas constitutes the largest crackdown on the practice in some time.

 

That got me thinking. Can there be a liberal (classical sense) argument against polygamy?

 

The only(?) truly liberal legal argument that I can come up with against the practice as conducted by the Mormons has to do with the forced marriage of underage women. Forcing women who are too young to give their informed consent into binding life commitments like marriage, much less forcing them to marry someone against there will - is clearly counter to the liberal notion that people should be free to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don't violate anyone else's right to do the same.

 

When it comes to adults - the picture is far less clear. I'm not sure that there can be a truly liberal argument against consenting adults choosing to engage in "plural marriage."

 

I suppose that you can argue that in practical terms, the practice of polygamy establishes an institutional framework where young-women will always be forced into non-consensual marriage, but others might argue that if you can establish adequate legal protections against forced and/or underage marriage, there shouldn't be any legal prohibition against polygamy amongst consenting adults.

 

This seems to be the de-facto stance taken by the attorney general in Utah. He's said that he won't prosecute consenting adults, but he will aggressively prosecute people who force underage women into marriage, commit welfare fraud, etc. Is he wrong on this one?

[ivan]

probitions against polygamy are thoroughly retarded, provided they are formed between consenting adults - interesting that conservatives will "look the other way" on this "attack on marriage" though but still squeal like pigs if fags marry, eh?

[underworld]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

[JayB]

probitions against polygamy are thoroughly retarded, provided they are formed between consenting adults - interesting that conservatives will "look the other way" on this "attack on marriage" though but still squeal like pigs if fags marry, eh?

 

Good point.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

probitions against polygamy are thoroughly retarded, provided they are formed between consenting adults - interesting that conservatives will "look the other way" on this "attack on marriage" though but still squeal like pigs if fags marry, eh?

 

Good point.

 

No, it's not a good point.

 

If you define marriage as "between a man and a woman" both gay marriage and polygamy are equally wrong.

 

Personally I'd like to see the state *out* of religious marriage, and religion *out* of civil unions. A church should not need a "marriage license" to wed a couple (or whatever) and the state should only define the legal contract bound between individuals (or groups thereof).

 

[Hugh Conway]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

 

So sterile people shouldn't be able to marry?

[ivan]

 

If you define marriage as "between a man and a woman" both gay marriage and polygamy are equally wrong.

 

Personally I'd like to see the state *out* of religious marriage, and religion *out* of civil unions. A church should not need a "marriage license" to wed a couple (or whatever) and the state should only define the legal contract bound between individuals (or groups thereof).

hey, there's something you, me n' bill maher can agree on!

[sexual_chocolate]

No, it's not a good point.

 

If you define marriage as "between a man and a woman" both gay marriage and polygamy are equally wrong.

 

and if you define kkk as an idiot, then his opinion has very little merit.

 

 

the concept of marriage isn't exclusively christian, so saying christian notions need to prevail is asenine.

 

i might draw the line at legitimizing marriage to non-humanoid animals though (cuz how can you be sure rover really isn't being forced into it with threats of a bath, or being fed cat fud?).

[ivan]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

[sexual_chocolate]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

 

bs. what's "more conducive to life" at this stage is if we all turn gay and don't reproduce for oh, about 50 years. i imagine you're aware of overpopulation?

[ivan]

No, it's not a good point.

 

If you define marriage as "between a man and a woman" both gay marriage and polygamy are equally wrong.

 

and if you define kkk as an idiot, then his opinion has very little merit.

 

 

whether he's an idiot is irrelevant, the "if-then" statement he made is self-evidently correct though

 

he did not state in his post wether he agreed w/ that definition, but that's also irrelevant as he intelligently asserts that The State really has no business in that arena

 

now if only they'll leave my magical herbs alone goddamit!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

No, it's not a good point.

 

If you define marriage as "between a man and a woman" both gay marriage and polygamy are equally wrong.

 

and if you define kkk as an idiot, then his opinion has very little merit.

 

 

the concept of marriage isn't exclusively christian, so saying christian notions need to prevail is asenine.

 

i might draw the line at legitimizing marriage to non-humanoid animals though (cuz how can you be sure rover really isn't being forced into it with threats of a bath, or being fed cat fud?).

 

eat a bag of dicks, SC

[KaskadskyjKozak]

whether he's an idiot is irrelevant, the "if-then" statement he made is self-evidently correct though

 

he did not state in his post wether he agreed w/ that definition, but that's also irrelevant as he intelligently asserts that The State really has no business in that arena

 

now if only they'll leave my magical herbs alone goddamit!

 

Exactly (on all three points).

 

 

[ivan]

 

eat a bag of dicks, SC

come now, if one must eat dicks, they oughta be fresh! something about this image makes me think they'll be all dry and dusty n' flavorless

 

besides, being a man, if he eats dicks, then he won't be able to get married...

[sexual_chocolate]

whether he's an idiot is irrelevant, the "if-then" statement he made is self-evidently correct though

 

he did not state in his post wether he agreed w/ that definition, but that's also irrelevant as he intelligently asserts that The State really has no business in that arena

 

now if only they'll leave my magical herbs alone goddamit!

 

Exactly (on all three points).

 

 

[underworld]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

 

possible, but not natural

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

 

possible, but not natural

 

bs (again). everything we stupid humans do is "natural".

[Hugh Conway]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

 

possible, but not natural

 

 

so no sterile marriages.

 

should people then divorce after menopause and move on to a fertile young bride?

[underworld]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

 

possible, but not natural

 

 

so no sterile marriages.

 

should people then divorce after menopause and move on to a fertile young bride?

 

the mindset is:

 

sterility is an act of god. the couple is still open to life, but circumstances BEYOND THEIR CONTROL prevent the new life. just because a couple is post menopausal doesn't mean they aren't open to life. it means they are past that stage in life.

 

[fenderfour]

The penalty for having two wives is having two wives.

 

 

[ivan]

i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

 

possible, but not natural

 

bs (again). everything we stupid humans do is "natural".

exactly. but then, by this definition, one man ramming an 18 inch black latex cock up another man's hersey-hiway would also be natural - and that makes the baby jesus cry....

[sexual_chocolate]

the mindset is:

 

sterility is an act of god.

 

you ever heard of sterility being reversed? an act of god being reversed?

 

yeah maybe in the ozarks you haven't heard of it, but people actually get preggo after being acted upon by god. insane, huh?

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

the mindset is:

 

sterility is an act of god. the couple is still open to life, but circumstances BEYOND THEIR CONTROL prevent the new life. just because a couple is post menopausal doesn't mean they aren't open to life. it means they are past that stage in life.

 

hysterectomies are acts of god?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

okay, but in a world of invitro-fertilization lesbians can still have kids, no?

 

possible, but not natural

 

 

So you oppose artificial insemination or other types of fertility treatments for childless couples seeking to have a baby? It's not "natural" after all. And drugs to treat illnesses. Those are often synthetic, and not "natural", so we can't administer them to the sick?

 

The whole "natural" argument is a losing one and problematic. "Marriage" is a loaded term, so I prefer something like "Civil Union" and it can be defined legally according to however the state (as represented by the people) wants to. The word "natural" would not be a part of that definition.

[underworld]

the mindset is:

 

sterility is an act of god. the couple is still open to life, but circumstances BEYOND THEIR CONTROL prevent the new life. just because a couple is post menopausal doesn't mean they aren't open to life. it means they are past that stage in life.

 

hysterectomies are acts of god?

 

why'd they get an hysterectomy?