Gay vs. Plural

[davjohns 1]

Alright. Apparently I have decided to return to this forum for some reason I do not understand...

Here's my topic for discussion:

I have no issue with gay marriage. I think it would cause some problems in definition of what a family is, but I don't want the government defining that for me anyhow. Insurance companies that have family plans will have to figure it out themselves. Benefits based on families seem wrong to me anyhow. If you get a discount for having a family and you have 66 kids, I have to take up the slack anyhow. Maybe you should be charged for what you use so you will control yourself.

But there's this...if gay marriage is objectionable because it violates Christian ideals and we allow it...what about plural marriage? There is a huge biblical basis for it. We only did away with it because the early Catholic church followed the guidance of a Roman on the issue (Saul / Paul). He was espousing the Roman ideal, not the law given by God. God had no problem with plural marriage anywhere in the bible. David (Beloved of God) had hundreds of wives and concubines.

So...if we legalize gay marriage (fine with me), do we give the nod to plural marriage (also not an issue with me).

Personally, I'm not a fan of government sanctioning who you have a relationship with (marriage license, licensed clergy, etc.) and making you give up the right to end a relationship without government approval on how (divorce). I understand it was necessary once to keep men from abandoning women and such. And then, there's the whole question of whether that keeps women from being truly equal...maybe another thread.

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[doughboyshred 0]

I have absolutely no problem with plural marriages, as long as they are not forced, as they can be in some religious situations.

[davjohns 1]

Fully agree on that point.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,129]

Yep. The whole marriage-as-a-civil-benefit thing is so intertwined that it'd be a nightmare to try to unravel how many dependent spouses and family members someone can carry on their work insurance (the ones I've deal with have a "self/self+1 other/self+family" options, with "self+family" covering however many others there are. Obviously this becomes incredibly not worth it for insurance companies if someone has 3 spouses and an equally large number of children.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ion01 1]

Its simple..... a marriage is a religious term so we have to consider that where the government is concerned we are not talking about marriage but a contract. In the case of a contract all the government is supposed to do is enforce the contract. That being said: if someone wants to contract with multiple people or one person of the same sex, constitutionally the federal government can have no say except to enforce the contract.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This does not prohibit having a statue of the ten commandment in a government courtyard as there is no law in regards to in, particularly by congress (thus the reason church services were held in the first treasury building and the supreme court's building, as well as the white house. To not allow church services would to be prohibiting the free exercise.) To make a federal concerning the religious practice of marriage and thereby limit the type of contracting that may be conducted between persons is unconstitutional. On a state level however, this might vary.

As for plural marriage, although religiously I beleive it too is wrong, once again, if there is a contract between to concenting persons then the government can only enforce the contract.

In a truely free society I do not fear any moral issues as we would have the ability to pay or not pay people we want to (hire) which would ultimately result in societies being established which are not only tolerant but supportive of plural, gay, or single heterosexual marriages seperately. If you are gay then you could go where you would be supported by others. This however will not happen in our current society due to descrimination laws which ultimately result in reverse descrimination. In addition, I choose not to bind my beliefs on others so I would have no problem paying (employeeing) someone if they were gay or plural marriage or whatever. I am only concerned about thier job performance.

Finally, in a truely free society as established by the founding fathers the power and responsibility falls on the free people. If the people don't like the fact that business Z is descriminating against gays then the people have the control to not purchase from business Z and put them out of business or stop the descrimination. This is about personal responsibility, not the governments. If the people don't put business Z out of business then the business can continue to descriminate. What happens then? Gay people have the freedom to move to where there are other gay people and be supported and have the control. I however, beleive that the first description would happen but does not due to the fact that law results in true descrimination being hidden, causes reverse descrimination, and when there is true descrimination no individual take action or responsibility for themselves because they beleive the government and law is there to handle it for them.
These principle were why there was segregation began with Woodrow Wilson and the massive expansion of government under progressives in that era. The claim was that segregation would remove racial tension...... By making it law the free people could no longer effective fight back which is why it took so long to change things. Before Woodrow their were blacks in the military and such. There were no seperate fountains and such because freedom had prevailed and that is why freedom is the answer.

[davjohns 1]

While I don't disagree with you, I think you took a sudden turn from what I was asking. Thanks for the response, though.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Yep. The whole marriage-as-a-civil-benefit thing is so intertwined that it'd be a nightmare to try to unravel how many dependent spouses and family members someone can carry on their work insurance (the ones I've deal with have a "self/self+1 other/self+family" options, with "self+family" covering however many others there are. Obviously this becomes incredibly not worth it for insurance companies if someone has 3 spouses and an equally large number of children.

Wendy P.

Yes....and in a free society, as established by the constitution, the insurance companies would be free to establish thier rules and such however they want....which would ultimately be controlled by society and who is willing to pay for it. However, with government involved, government must either cover the whole family and thereby make it unaffordable for all, or restrict the freedom of people by not allow plural marriage. The answer is freedom and to keep the government out.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

While I don't disagree with you, I think you took a sudden turn from what I was asking. Thanks for the response, though.

[davjohns 1]

Thanks for the clarification, but where does the bible prohibit plural marriage? Abraham engaged in it. David was sure a fan. Saul was too. Jacob worked hard to marry two sisters. It wasn't until Rome imposed it's morals on the Jews that it went away. Paul espoused not getting married if you were widowed, but if you had to, he recommended the Roman preference for monogamous marriage.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Nightingale 0]

As long as all parties are consenting adults, I have no issue with any kind of marriage.

I do, however, think that the government should step out of the business of recognizing relationships, so we can end this entire mess of deciding what kinds of relationships are worthy. Keep marriage where it belongs: between the consenting adults, the community, and their deity if applicable.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Thanks for the clarification, but where does the bible prohibit plural marriage? Abraham engaged in it. David was sure a fan. Saul was too. It wasn't until Rome imposed it's morals on the Jews that it went away. Paul espoused not getting married if you were widowed, but if you had to, he recommended the Roman preference for monogamous marriage.

The question here is, "Who in their right mind would WANT more than one wife?"

Divorce comes and if you have 2 wives and thety both get half . . .

Hell a three wife divorce will put you in debtors prison.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[davjohns 1]

By the way...everyone who has chimed in so far sounds like a Libertarian to me. But that's just me. I am partial to that vein.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[livendive 8]

I think the government should step out of marriage altogether. It's a religious issue best left to the churches and their members. Protect the vulnerable (e.g. children, the elderly, and the infirm) and otherwise get as much distance as they can from it. Telling people who they can marry is like telling them what kind of bread they can have at communion, or prosecuting non-observance of the sabbath.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[davjohns 1]

Agreed Turtle. Matthew 6:24 - No man can serve two masters. The only bibilical prohibition to polygamy that I can find. Lol

It does raise the question of whether a woman can have two husbands, though. Or a bunch of women / men have a same sex polygamous situation?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Prior23 0]

Quote

I think the government should step out of marriage altogether. It's a religious issue best left to the churches and their members. Protect the vulnerable (e.g. children, the elderly, and the infirm) and otherwise get as much distance as they can from it. Telling people who they can marry is like telling them what kind of bread they can have at communion, or prosecuting non-observance of the sabbath.

Blues,
Dave

I agree that the government should not have any thing to do with telling us whom we can or cannot marry but I think one step further from that is what makes religion so special that it can have a say in who marrys who. When did marriage all of a sudden become some religious topic because marriage predates Christianity.

Saying it is unlawful to love someone of the same sex is no different that banning interracial marriages.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[davjohns 1]

I see your point, but at least religion is voluntary. If you don't like anything espoused by one religion, you can change, make up your own version or just opt out. Government doesn't give you that option with nearly the ease that religion does (now).

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I think the government should step out of marriage altogether. It's a religious issue best left to the churches and their members. Protect the vulnerable (e.g. children, the elderly, and the infirm) and otherwise get as much distance as they can from it. Telling people who they can marry is like telling them what kind of bread they can have at communion, or prosecuting non-observance of the sabbath.

Blues,
Dave

I agree that the government should not have any thing to do with telling us whom we can or cannot marry but I think one step further from that is what makes religion so special that it can have a say in who marrys who. When did marriage all of a sudden become some religious topic because marriage predates Christianity.

Saying it is unlawful to love someone of the same sex is no different that banning interracial marriages.

I use the word "church" loosely. Whether it's the Roman Catholic church or Bob's Marriage Center, my point is that the government shouldn't care. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry according to their beliefs, so long as nobody is harmed and the vulnerable are protected. I think the closest a government should get to marriage is to presume that it will be consummated, and thus inappropriate for those who can't give knowledgeable consent.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Niki1 1]

I have no problem with any of that. I think it's like Ion01 said, it's a contract thing.

Now this may be off on a tangent but...

When the bible is sighted as a rationale, as in "the bible says", I don't think that is any different than what bring the torches and pitchforks out when someone says, "Sharia law".

A society may define its standards of behavior "for the common good" but too often it's just some people imposing THEIR idea of right and wrong on everyone else. My idea is do whatvever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

A society may also set up systems to help the less fortunate in that society. It would be good to think that this is done for compassionate reasons but some times I think it's the payoff, or bribe, for putting up with THEIR idea of right and wrong.

I don't know what's right for other people, I just know what I think. I try not to export or evangelize what I think and I don't take kindly to others who do whether they agree with me or not.

Treat everyone else like you would like to be treated. I think that's all we reallly need.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

While I don't disagree with you, I think you took a sudden turn from what I was asking. Thanks for the response, though.

what parts do you disagree with?

He says let government stay out of contracts and people's private lives. and that people can speak via choices of patronage or not....even when it may disturb his personal beliefs...

I think it's dead on target

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,406]

>I do, however, think that the government should step out of the
>business of recognizing relationships . . .

Agreed. The government has a role in setting up civil unions and contracts, since they are legally enforceable. But marriage should be the sole province of people (and churches, and ministers etc.)

[maadmax 0]

There is a huge biblical basis for it. We only did away with it because the early Catholic church followed the guidance of a Roman on the issue (Saul / Paul). He was espousing the Roman ideal, not the law given by God. God had no problem with plural marriage anywhere in the bible. David (Beloved of God) had hundreds of wives and concubines.
?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The question here is, "Who in their right mind would WANT more than one wife?"
]

Right.

Q: What's the penalty for Bigamy?



A: Two Wives

Government should stop recognizing personal relationships and prioritizing some over others. Of course I'm another one of those Libertarian types.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I agree that the government should not have any thing to do with telling us whom we can or cannot marry but I think one step further from that is what makes religion so special that it can have a say in who marrys who. When did marriage all of a sudden become some religious topic because marriage predates Christianity.

Saying it is unlawful to love someone of the same sex is no different that banning interracial marriages.

Right, but churches are private parties and can say anything they want. I am no more obligated to accept a churches validation of a marriage than I am to accept their statements about a man living inside of a fish or about having 72 virgins waiting fo rme.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,406]

>There are many instances where human behavior is mentioned in the
>Bible for historical purposes not as an example of proper behavior.

This isn't just a mention, it's an instruction:

Exodus 21:10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."

Exodus 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>There are many instances where human behavior is mentioned in the
>Bible for historical purposes not as an example of proper behavior.

This isn't just a mention, it's an instruction:

Exodus 21:10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."

Exodus 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."

Fuck....they even had Lawyers back then....