JayB Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 The penalty for having two wives is having two wives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.