In another thread I asked if whether board members could tolerate the LDS church if it kept its bigotry to itself and remained apolitical about gay marriage. The biggest vote was, No. Bigotry is wrong, whether practiced openly or in secret. (See http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,13242 )

Ok.

Given that the board is quite open minded, my second question is (quite appropriate to an exmo liberal crowd):

Why are we limited to accepting marriage between only two people? Why are polygamous (one man/woman with multiple spouses) or polyamorous (a couple who both love other couples/people) relationships not also legally recognized? Why not advocate for these to get rights?

Is two a magic number? Or is it that once you have the right with one lover, you don't need to add another to the state's roster?

A 3rd question could be: does the union have to be about sex? straight or gay marriage recognition is about who you love AND with whom you also have sex. Could we broaden the recognition of marital rights to two (or more?) persons in a completely platonic relationship that would not otherwise qualify for marriage (siblings, parent-child, cousins, etc)?

Why do platonic relationships take a back seat?

against it, especially after the Civil Rights Act (1964?)

Their completely internal ban of black males from the priesthood was still viewed as racist, and opposed by the general population. Same thing should apply with homosexuals. Same should apply with the female ban from priesthood, but that's another thread.

Is two the magic number? Yes.

Does the union have to be about sex? It doesn't have to be about sex now. Any two or more people can live together. Parent-child already qualify as a state-recognized family. If you are asking about tax preferences for any two people living together, I think a more relevant question is why not get rid of the tax preferences altogether. Not that that will happen. Everyone wants a simpler tax code, except for the convolutions that benefit them.

Oh, and lots of marriages are platonic relationships. Some are adversarial relationships. C'est la vie.

I don't see where some of these different legal issues can be easily resolved, but I think they need to be resolved before multiple partner marriages could be a viable institution.

There are so many sexless marriages that it is very strange that you would even ask the question "A 3rd question could be: does the union have to be about sex?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2010 10:23AM by MJ.

There is much more to the issue of polygamous marriage than gay marriage. Remember that in the court case against Prop H8, the judge's ruling was motivated by the fact that proponents for Prop H8 were unable to provide any kind of persuasive argument that gay marriage was in any way detrimental to society. Any issues that gay marriage poses are issues that apply to straight marriage as well.

It isn't clear that the same can be said for establishing legal recognition for polygamous unions. There's lots of ugly evidence about how polygamy is practiced by enough groups to suggest that providing legal sanctions for those unions, and thus normalizing them in society might be detrimental--particularly for the women and children involved. We've got "lost boys", escaped former polygamous wives, child brides, etc. There's Carolyn Jessop, Flora Jessop and others who speak very effectively to the problems these social groups face in virtue of the nature of the relationships involved.

That is NOT to say that I personally think all polygamous arrangements are wrong or bad-- just that the way many groups practice it is problematic.

Before I'd be okay with legally sanctioning polygamous unions, I'd need to see an unbiased cost-benefit analysis that shows that if polygamous unions were recognized and normalized, it would not result in unfavorable social consequences.

Why do all you anonymous Mormon/exMormon gay-marriage rabble-rousers immediately skip to the slippery-slope polygamy question? Do you all listen to the same broken GA record or what?

Reason I ask is you betray your lingering Mormon thought patterns every time with that one. Everyone else knows that the next thing that will happen after gay marriage is cats and dogs will start sleeping together.

Oh yeah: and the sky will cave in on all of us.

:)

I don't think comparing gay marriage to polygamy is fair. For gay marriage, you are giving someone that feels love for a member of the same sex the ability to have rights that are equal to those who feel love for the opposite sex.

Are we naturally monogamous? Idk. I think in modern day society it probably works better at least.

there are no child brides, or indoctrination that monogamy is evil.

If everything is consensual and no one gets hurt, and the kids are free to choose to leave this lifestyle if they wish and still be accepted, I say go for it.

I saw on TV here in Aussie when they raided that compound in UT, or was it AZ? I thought no one thought of the kids. They were split from their mum/s for their own protection, but they were just scared and hurt and worried.

If there are blood tests to prevent inbreeding, and freedom to take or leave polygamy if you want, no one under 18 can be married, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

I don't care how many people get married to each other and I don't care what their sex is. Frankly, it's none of my business.

I think polygamy should be legal, I think gay marriage should be legal. As long as it's consenting adults and they're not related (for genetic reasons) then I don't care.