Polygamy: The Next Marriage Rights Frontier!

[FrankRep]

Well Joseph never had sex with Mary...

Jesus had brothers, younger ones.

[Tywysog Cymru]

This is what happens when the government interferes with marriage. I, for one, support the traditional definition of marriage, as did 75% of my state in a vote on it.

[TonySutton]

This is what happens when the government interferes with marriage. I, for one, support the traditional definition of marriage, as did 75% of my state in a vote on it.

You don't believe in religious freedom?

[liberty2897]

Not sure how people make it work, but live and let live..

I can't seem to make a relationship with one person last. Probably wouldn't mind some sort of timeshare arrangement..

[Debbie Downer]

Jesus had brothers, younger ones.

Mary had only one child and remains perpetually a virgin.

[jmdrake]

Mary had only one child and remains perpetually a virgin.

That's Catholic tradition. The Bible strongly suggests otherwise.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/d...art.cfm?ID=199

[JCDenton0451]

What?

Liberals are far more likely to criticize Israel. Why the bull$#@!?

What do you mean by criticism? Asking Israelis very politely to slow the growth of their illegal settlements is no criticism.

[Eagles' Wings]

That's Catholic tradition. The Bible strongly suggests otherwise.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/d...art.cfm?ID=199

Interesting article.

[JCDenton0451]

Wonder how many homosexual marriage proponents oppose polygamy because "I personally think it's icky." All the while screeching for homosexual marriage to be legal because "it's between consenting adults!"

If the definition of marriage can be changed from "one man, one woman" to "any two adults", I don't see why the numerical part can't be changed too.

No, no, no. If you bring up the prospect of polygamous or incestous marriage with liberals, they'll tell you they can't accept it because it's a form of abuse. That's the standard response.

[Edward777]

If you listen to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erTwhTCAAss It is noted that sometimes sister wives wind up having romantic relations with each other. That's a way to sell the idea of polygamy to feminists.

[gwax23]

American conservatives should argue for the adoption of Israel's system, where marriage is completely the domain of religious authorities, the state has no part in it.

A wedding ceremony between a Muslim and a Jew is simply not possible in Israel, and nobody seems to accuse them of discrimination and racism. Go figure...

Ahaha you cant be serious? Every $#@!ing thread I see you post in you bring up Israel.

First off to address the OP, the state should get out of marriage altogether and I have no problem with consensual polygamy.

As to the israeli marriage system, no country is perfect, but the fact that you consistently bring up Israel should your hypocrisy and bias. The system itself that you mention is a hamydown from the ottomans by way of the British.

It is in fact possible though and there are many notable mix marriages but Islamic, jewish, and Christian religious factions and authorities put a lot of effort into making it difficult. Its not just the "Evil jews" who support this system. The vast majority of the secular population has been protesting heavily against it and based on the most recent legislative elections parties that supported reforming the system got a huge percentage of the vote and so I dont see the system lasting long.

[jtstellar]

YES DO WANT

without reading further past the title

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm definitely pro polygamy. If I ever get rich I'd consider the lifestyle for entirely non religious reasons.

Any else ever watch the show Big Love? It was awesome.

[John F Kennedy III]

No, no, no. If you bring up the prospect of polygamous or incestous marriage with liberals, they'll tell you they can't accept it because it's a form of abuse. That's the standard response.

LOL. The world would be far less entertaining without liberals.

[Icymudpuppy]

Well Joseph never had sex with Mary...

I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "Dogma".

[On Christ]

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin birth, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility

[TER]

Mary had only one child and remains perpetually a virgin.

That is correct, and the bible does not say otherwise. Jesus had step-siblings (Joseph was a widow according to Church Tradition) and in the bible the term brother is often used to mean close relative.

The Virgin Mary was a virgin her entire life. That is the orthodox faith.

[TER]

I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "Dogma".

[On Christ]

Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin birth, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility

It is gullible to believe that the older Joseph, a devout and obedient Jew, having known that his betrothed was giving birth to the Son of God, would then have sex with her afterwards. They lived like the other many saints in history who turned to God after getting married, and then lived together as brother and sister.

[Pericles]

Feminists condemn it. That's all that matters.

case closed

[Edward777]

Any evidence of this, scriptural or otherwise?

[matt0611]

No, no, no. If you bring up the prospect of polygamous or incestous marriage with liberals, they'll tell you they can't accept it because it's a form of abuse. That's the standard response.

Which is just rich because who are they to say what consenting adults can do? "it doesn't effect them" etc etc

[LibForestPaul]

Check this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erTwh...ature=youtu.be

For the life of me I cannot understand why the state has the right to tell consenting adults they cannot practice polygamy. The Bible does not condemn it, the Koran does not condemn it and Darwinism would certainly not condemn it. Maybe it is time to let people live as they like. Again, the video features an interview with an anthropologist who has studied polygamy today. Her findings are quite interesting.

Because the state does not allow one to discriminate based on marital status. As well as forcing marriage to alter contracts. "Healthcare, tax law, etc"

[Edward777]

So you agree the state should allow consenting adults to enter into polygamy if they choose, right?

[kcchiefs6465]

Good?

[Edward777]

Here's a controversial way of looking at it. There are an equal number of men and women from the ages of 18 - 40, the reproductive ages for women in our society, so to speak. In theory that means everyone should find a mate. However, many more men than women do not want commitment, family and the associated responsibilities. More men go exclusively gay than women go lesbian. More men have genetic weaknesses. Wouldn't polygamy solve the problem of women not finding mates as well as start an upward trend towards better health and even intelligence?

[AlexAmore]

Rand Paul needs to come out strongly in favor of homosexual polygamy otherwise he's not a true Libertarian and sold out to the GOP machine. /sarcasm

[FindLiberty]

---

http://rememberinghistory.wordpress....oon-yi-previn/

[osan]

Check this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erTwh...ature=youtu.be

For the life of me I cannot understand why the state has the right to tell consenting adults they cannot practice polygamy. The Bible does not condemn it, the Koran does not condemn it and Darwinism would certainly not condemn it. Maybe it is time to let people live as they like. Again, the video features an interview with an anthropologist who has studied polygamy today. Her findings are quite interesting.

In a sense this is a non-issue because if I want 10 wives and can find that many willing candidates to my liking, we say we're married and that is about it. There is NOTHING the "state" can do about and so I fart in Theire general direction and waggle my tongue at them most obscenely.

The issue at hand is that the vast majority of people have bought into the "marriage license" thing. If people simply ignored it and did what they wanted, the "state" would be forced into having to choose to become violent against just about everyone or back the hell down to a rung a bit closer to the low status of esteem and authority they rightly merit.

The ONLY reason we, the individuals of the human world, are so hopelessly $#@!ed is because enough of us consent to the outrages perpetrated against us and the rest get sucked into the vortex. The rest of us are equally guilty because we have not acted in materially effective ways to correct the situation. At this point we are well within our proper territory to remedy the circumstance by whatever means we deem necessary.

[enhanced_deficit]

duplicate

[Edward777]

In a sense this is a non-issue because if I want 10 wives and can find that many willing candidates to my liking, we say we're married and that is about it. There is NOTHING the "state" can do about and so I fart in Theire general direction and waggle my tongue at them most obscenely.

The issue at hand is that the vast majority of people have bought into the "marriage license" thing. If people simply ignored it and did what they wanted, the "state" would be forced into having to choose to become violent against just about everyone or back the hell down to a rung a bit closer to the low status of esteem and authority they rightly merit.

The ONLY reason we, the individuals of the human world, are so hopelessly $#@!ed is because enough of us consent to the outrages perpetrated against us and the rest get sucked into the vortex. The rest of us are equally guilty because we have not acted in materially effective ways to correct the situation. At this point we are well within our proper territory to remedy the circumstance by whatever means we deem necessary.

Not really. If one of your wives was, let's say, German then she has no standing as your wife so she could wind up being deported (they do that to Europeans, not Africans or Latin Americans). Also, there are issues involving parental rights. So yes, laws that gave legal standing to polygamists would allow them to have more job opportunities, fair legal rights and the like.

[enhanced_deficit]

Here we go again:

Why same-sex marriage will pave the way to polygamy

By Peter Sprigg | June 20, 2016



Photo courtesy of FeSeven via Shutterstock

In the wake of Obergefell, we are much closer to a further redefinition of marriage -- to include polygamous and polyamorous marriages.

(RNS) “What harm would it do?”
This was the question frequently asked by those who supported same-sex marriage.

I sought to answer that question with a pamphlet that I wrote and the Family Research Council published, titled, “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage.’”
Now, a year after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of redefining marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), we do not yet have the data needed regarding various changes in family structure. Some of my predictions, though, have already come to fruition.

The most obvious involves the rapidly growing attacks on freedom of conscience and religion. Before Obergefell, we were assured that redefining marriage would have no impact on anyone except same-sex couples. Yet today, LGBT activists increasingly wage attacks against even the mildest measures to protect religious liberty.

---

Another prediction has also received considerable validation — although without as much public attention. In the wake of Obergefell, we are much closer to a further redefinition of marriage — to include polygamous and polyamorous marriages.

Some commentators leaped at the opportunity to make the case for polygamy, one literally within hours after Obergefell. Freelance writer Fredrik deBoer wrote an op-ed for Politico, titled “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy,” the same day the ruling was announced.

“Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone,” asked deBoer, “why should it be limited to just two individuals?” It would hard for any supporter of court-imposed same-sex marriage — especially homosexual activists — to reject deBoer’s assertion that the “progressive and enlightened” now agree that “consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice.”
However, Jonathan Rauch, a gay activist who works at the Brookings Institution, tried to make a distinction in a Politico rebuttal to deBoer. Rauch notes a number of (quite valid) concerns about the impact of polygamy. In polygamous societies, he said, there tends to be “competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities (that is, wives), which leaves lower-status men out in the cold.”
http://religionnews.com/2016/06/20/w...y-to-polygamy/