If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Bishka]

Okay, I'm done taking this thread off track.

Darkpenguin, you want to start a thread on mormons and polygamy - be my guest.

Anywho - I would be in favor of polygamy - but that's just me.

 

[Faint]

why then are mormons well known for their polygamous relationships, anybody says the word mormon to me and thats what i think of straight away!

Funny, I tend to think of guys in white shirts with black ties and back packs riding around on bicycles.

You might want to stop watching HBO. "Big Love" was a poorly written (and phenomenally boring) show anyway.

 

[darkpenguin]

Wow... Holy crap.

Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that the reason that polygamy is the first thing you think of when you hear the word Mormon is because YOU are ignorant about the Mormon faith and not because Becky or any other Mormon is ignorant about THEIR own faith. Maybe you should learn more about something before you make such statements. Just some advice.

for your information i have mormon friends with whom i've had many interesting conversations with and they don't dispute that it goes on as they are educated in their religion, as am i, i'm constantly learning about different religions as they interest me!

 

[standing_alone]

for your information i have mormon friends with whom i've had many interesting conversations with and they don't dispute that it goes on as they are educated in their religion, as am i, i'm constantly learning about different religions as they interest me!

The thing is you're telling Becky, a Mormon, that she's ignorant about her own faith, which I find laughable and, frankly, insulting to Becky. She's pointed out that typically Mormons do not practice polygamy anymore. Now, I think that, since she is Mormon, she would probably have a pretty good idea on the prevalence of polygamy among those of the Mormon faith.

But anyways... This is all off-topic.

 

[darkpenguin]

anyways this is getting totaly off track, at the end of the day polygamy is wrong(marriage is meant to be a union of 2 people not more) and so is incest, whereas there is nothing wrong religiously or moraly with a homosexual union!

 

[Bishka]

Where is polygamy so wrong? If it's practiced in the right circumstances, and the children and wives are not abused, I don't see a single problem with it.

 

[Faint]

anyways this is getting totaly off track, at the end of the day polygamy is wrong(marriage is meant to be a union of 2 people not more) and so is incest, whereas there is nothing wrong religiously or moraly with a homosexual union!

I'm SO starting a thread on this now...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would be in favor of polygamy - but that's just me.

Where is polygamy so wrong? If it's practiced in the right circumstances, and the children and wives are not abused, I don't see a single problem with it.

Well that's music to my ears.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

and you really need to learn about your religion

Not a good tactic.

 

[sojourner]

and your sure your a christian? think you should consider becoming a mormon my friend!

My religion prohibits polygamy. I, personally, am not in favor of polygamy. But I think that the government should recognized as valid any marriage that a religion deems valid.

 

[Mike182]

at the end of the day polygamy is wrong(marriage is meant to be a union of 2 people not more)

says who?

 

[sojourner]

So law should be dictated by religion?

See post #46 in the thread "civil marriage vs. religious marriage." Whay I'm saying is nicely outlined there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My religion prohibits polygamy. I, personally, am not in favor of polygamy. But I think that the government should recognized as valid any marriage that a religion deems valid.

Wow. This is just backwards.

 

[HopefulNikki]

...do you have to allow any form of marriage between consenting adults (i.e. polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.)?

I know this is a hot hot topic and I am not trying to rub anyone the wrong way. I seriously want to know.

My perception is the pro-homosexual marriage group gets offended when it is suggested allowing homosexual marriage may lead to polygamy or other kinds of marriage.

In my mind, it seems like a logical progression.

Don't worry, you're not alone. The fact that there's now people, even here on RF in a recent thread, defending polygamy, seems like pretty clear evidence that once you start conding the actions of one minority, such as homosexuals, all will try to be validated in the public circle. ABC aired a recent show called "The Outsiders," chronicling the daily plights of polygamists, strippers, people who have married their cousins, even people who call themselves "asexual." The fact that we're even considering for a second that these people's experiences and/or choices could be moral or normative is beyond me.

 

[nutshell]

Thanks for getting us back on track, Nikki.

To those who don't believe allowing homosexual marriage will not lead to other things can you please give your reasoning?

Thanks.

 

[Green Gaia]

It may, it may not. No one knows so we should deal with the issue at hand and do what's just at the moment. Besides it would be fair to say hetersexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. After all, if the government wasn't giving heterosexuals special rights and priviledges then we wouldn't be asking for them either.

 

[Inky]

In response to the OP--The same argument was made in protest of interracial marriage, and in protest of wives gaining legal and social equality with their husbands. Society changes; evidence that a social structure (like marriage) is currently changing in one way isn't evidence that it is going to change in many other ways, or become meaningless, or disappear. In fact, I would argue that including same-sex couples in the institution of marriage is no more radical a step than assuming that a husband and wife are equally in control of the relationship, or assuming a married couple don't need children. Truly "traditional" marriage (or at least traditional European marriage) is a system by which a male with wealth and/or property can produce a male heir he can be certain is his offspring, in order to pass the family name and status on to him. That's why a man had grounds for divorce if his wife had no male children after a reasonable waiting period. Families with no wealth to speak of usually didn't have recorded marriages because they weren't necessary. The idea of what marriage is about has changed so much that there isn't really grounds for calling anything similar to the modern system "traditional".

 

[darkpenguin]

says who?

says anyone that hasnt got a screw loose in their head! and why should it be recognised by the government? you see terrorists bombing people in the name of religion i know lets ask the governments to accept that to heh?

 

[darkpenguin]

Thanks for getting us back on track, Nikki.

To those who don't believe allowing homosexual marriage will not lead to other things can you please give your reasoning?

Thanks.

because as i stated before, the other examples you stated were morally wrong, homosexuality is not religiously or moralyl wrong in my book, if it was religiously wrong 'god' wouldn't allow it to happen but 'god' does as it's not wrong!

 

[HopefulNikki]

It may, it may not. No one knows so we should deal with the issue at hand and do what's just at the moment.

Except that the question is quite relevant to the issue. If allowing homosexuality does inevitably lead to polygamy and the acceptance of other sexual minorities, then obviously the question of whether homosexuality should be condoned should be quesitoned.

Besides it would be fair to say hetersexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.

By what standard? Heterosexual marriage has existed for millenia without causing any homosexuals to rise up and demand "equal" treatment like they're doing today. It hasn't been until the past 30-40 years that any significant portion of the human population has even bothered to consider whether or not homosexuality is moral or not. On the other hand, with the recent condoning of homosexuality in large portions of the world, we now see an immediate result of other sexual minority groups attempting to draw up sympathies for their causes. The connection seems pretty obvious.