"See we told you so..."

[sjbouza]

This is what is going to be coming out of the Fundies mouths now. "We told you the slippery slope was real, look at what is happening in Canada."

Here is the story from the Desert News.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Canada's legalization of same-sex marriage will be used in the defense of two men charged with polygamy earlier this month, a lawyer for one of the men said Wednesday.

I cannot see this happening due to the fact of the legal ramifications that will arise. It is one thing that our system, as well as the Canadian, already has laws pertaining to two people entering into and desolving a marriage. However, as it was brought up in the Iowa Supreme Court same sex marriage case, polygamist marriages would have to get an entirely new set of laws. How would separation of marital assets be if the man decided to divorce one or more of his wives? Would the other wives be able to claim visitation rights to the other children in the "marriage"? Who would be able to claim any social security or death benefits when the man dies? What if the wifes differed on how to deal with medical emergencies?

I mean there are a completely different set of laws and rules that need to be created just for this type of marriage. Equal protection cannot be invoked in this way, because there are no laws that pertain to it.

Peace,
Scott

[Emproph]

Not that I’m against polygamy, but there are some grave social consequences to such a policy. I’ve found this article to be an invaluable resource. A few paragraphs:

One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems
The social consequences of polygamy are bigger than you think

Other things being equal [male to female ratio] (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.

[snip]

The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy's inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.

Also, remember that polygamy is Biblically approved.
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

A resource for proving that Polygamy really IS Biblical.
The purpose and outline of this web-site are simple:
As based only on the Bible, to provide

• the Exegesis / Argumentation Proofs in the Bible,
• the list of all the Polygamists in the Bible,
• and the examples where The Lord Himself is self-described in polygamous terms in the Bible,

all in a simple and easy-to-use web-site.

This is one I like to remember:

God said He GAVE Wives

Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

• "Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."
• "Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."
• "Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".
• "Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Coincidentally, I ran across a blog post earlier today that tried to justify Biblical polygamy with God “allowed” it then, but now He doesn’t. Fortunately one of the commenters, Jim, set them straight: “God does not change. If polygamy was not sinful then, it is not now.”

So we have plenty of artillery on our side in regard to this issue. NO DOUBT they’ll weasel their way out of anything we say, but anyone informed on the facts, both social and Biblical, should have no trouble staying on the offense.

It’s the news shows and our often inept spokespeople that concern me.

[wmanion]

has a couple of Latter Day Saints visit her weekly. She loves to debate with them. Recently she asked about this very subject and she was told that once polygamy was needed to populate the earth but their new prophet (a new one is given for every generation) has told them it is no longer needed. Presently, they are trying to convince her that drinking hot drinks is a sin because the profit has said so because of the caffeine. However, she can have all the cold soft beverages she wants no matter how much caffeine. I guess the caffeine only affects you if the beverage is hot. Of course, all hot drinks are sinful though because the profit of this generation said so.

[BruceChris]

I'm just glad that my church is a non-prophet organization. ()

BC

[Jennifer5]

Growing up in the U.S. this is a hard topic to understand. It seems so wrong to me. But what are the beliefs that say it is ok? Is it all just about the way people interpret the bible?

Really, for the most part, I don't even care. It's not a moral thing, because I think it's fine as long as everyone involved is in agreement (not this cheating on people thing). However, I think of the kind of people who end up getting left out completely. How sad is that to never have a true chance at love (and marriage)?