Good article on the Massachussetts Marriage Decision
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Um, its an editorial, and it doesn't really present any new ideas. So what, exactly, makes it a "good article", other than it agrees with you?
Because it presents common sense and nothing more. When one side is presenting arguments rife with loaded terms such as extinction, destruction at the hands of our enemies, and public disintegration, you have to admit that a level headed approach is most certainly a good departure. 
Natoma said:50 years ago the Anti-Miscegenists in our society needed love and understanding too. Today we have to put that far-sighted foot forward for the Anti-Gays today. They'll come around eventually.
I suppose it can't be easy being a speedbump on the way to the future
Im not going to start a new thread but, here is a news story in cnn:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/02/prosecuting.polygamy.ap/index.html
That shows one of the first consequences of the anti-sodomy supreme court ruling.
later,
epic
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/02/prosecuting.polygamy.ap/index.html
That shows one of the first consequences of the anti-sodomy supreme court ruling.
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
later,
epic[/quote]
I think that needs its own thread. My very short comment for the moment is, if you wanna do that kind of thing, u do it in a country where it's legal to do so.
epicstruggle said:
That's not a consequence. Polygamists have been fighting to restore the right to marry multiple people in this country since 1882 when the ironically titled Morrill Act (get it? Morrill, Moral, Morrill, Moral,
) was passed by a decidedly puritan court, banning polygamy, especially targeted toward Mormons in Utah. In today's climate that law would have never been passed because it would have been most likely seen as a broach against one's religious rights. As I've said before I don't have a problem with polygamy. If a wife wants 10 husbands and they consent go right ahead. If a husband wants 10 wives and they consent go right ahead. Solomon, a jewish king, had hundreds of wives. Abraham had Sarah and he had Hagar, his allowed-by-god consort. And Islam permits Polygamy as well. Hindus have practiced polygamy for centuries, despite the religious ban, and apparently there was a new law against Hindus who would switch to Islam simply to take on a second wife, in India, in 2000. Or was it 2001? Must have been a huge problem in India for the Indian Supreme Court (Hindu Marriage Act I believe) to step in. But there is a distinct line drawn when dealing with children, and this man will receive a jail sentence because drawing children into a sexual relationship, be it homosexual, heterosexual, polygamous, et al, is wrong. The key difference is that children cannot make sexual decisions with a legal adult on their own, or at least we've deemed children as a whole incapable of making sexual decisions until they're 18 (16 in some states.
), i.e. when they become recognized as an adult.But then who am I to judge. Hindus have been betrothing their 12 year old daughters to 30 year old men for centuries as marriages made in heaven. So maybe it isn't wrong.
Fyi, I read in Newsweek a few days ago that the Utah AG has been moving for years to lessen the punishment associated with Polygamy to a misdemeanor. The only potential problem with allowing polygamy would be the required changes to the tax code, inheritance laws, et al.
london-boy said:
I think that needs its own thread. My very short comment for the moment is, if you wanna do that kind of thing, u do it in a country where it's legal to do so.[/quote]
Umm, he's trying to use the recent supreme court rulings on "sexual privacy" to achieve just that.
RussSchultz said:
errrmmm i was focusing on the "13 year old" part...
From what I have heard a large number of people still practice polygamy in Utah/Nevada and generally around that area. The public officials in general do not care unless someone does something like this and tries to get with a minor.
BTW this is not really a mormon thing anymore, it is usually splinter groups who think that they have some divine mandate to start being a polygamist, and break away from being mormon. (I mean that most polygamists now think mormonism is false, and that they are right)
It is strange in a way though, if you look at Italy what is the percentage of men that have affairs? I think it is like 85% or something, not much difference really.
BTW this is not really a mormon thing anymore, it is usually splinter groups who think that they have some divine mandate to start being a polygamist, and break away from being mormon. (I mean that most polygamists now think mormonism is false, and that they are right)
It is strange in a way though, if you look at Italy what is the percentage of men that have affairs? I think it is like 85% or something, not much difference really.
Sxotty said:
Huh?? What statistics paper did u get that from? Penthouse? Or, better, The Sun?
RussSchultz said:
Speaking about the group sex itself as opposed to their concept of 'marriage', as long as all participants are of consensual age this really is and should be a matter of sexual privacy. When one of the persons happens to be underage, the ruling does not apply - that person is protected by other laws and it is still illegal.
I think it's rather contrived that this interpretation of the intent of the sexual privacy ruling should come up in a topic about marriage in general and gay marriage in particular however - gays are not looking to redefine marriage to be anything more than what it is - a contract between *two* individuals of consensual age.
Florin said:
Marriage is a contract between two people of the opposite sex to many people. That is what I think of as marriage.
Websters said:
Changing the definition to two individuals, is not fundumentaly different than changing it to include multiple individuals.
WRT the italian thing it was a while ago that I read it, and I am not sure where, but it was a realiable type source, not a silly tabloidesque source. In any case I will look into it.
edit: BTW I meant at sometime in their married life, not at any given moment. (Like I said I do not remember the exact number just that it seemed very high to me, so maybe it is just double the US or something [which would seem high])
Sxotty said:
I know I've brought this up before, but there was a time in this country when marriage was only between two people of the same race to many people. There was a time centuries ago when marriage was only between two people of the same religion.
The core tenet of Marriage has never changed though, through the ages. Lifelong Devotion to another human being.
Sxotty said:
Webster's also says:
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
I understand what you're saying, but as I said earlier, 100 years ago Webster's dictionary may have been so inclined to say:
Marriage: the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife of the same race : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women of the same race are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
The legalization of miscegenation was a tremendous change for the institution of marriage in this country, one that many people at the time said would lead to the extinction of marriage and the destruction of society. And it didn't. Sound familiar ByteMe?
In fact Marriage survived intact and has thrived. My uncle is married to a white woman and has two children. 50 years ago he would have been thrown in jail at the worst, or preached to. This is merely a repeat of history imo.
Similar threads
