Bitcoin Forum

Most dispiriting, and least convincing, are those arguments that simply reconstitute the slippery slope arguments that have been used for so long against same sex marriage. “If we allow group marriage,” the thinking seems to go, “why wouldn’t marriage with animals or children come next?” The difference is, of course, consent. In recent years, a progressive and enlightened movement has worked to insist that consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice: as long as all involved in any particular sexual or romantic relationship are consenting adults, everything is permissible; if any individual does not give free and informed consent, no sexual or romantic engagement can be condoned.

This bedrock principle of mutually-informed consent explains exactly why we must permit polygamy and must oppose bestiality and child marriage. Animals are incapable of voicing consent; children are incapable of understanding what it means to consent. In contrast, consenting adults who all knowingly and willfully decide to enter into a joint marriage contract, free of coercion, should be permitted to do so, according to basic principles of personal liberty. The preeminence of the principle of consent is a just and pragmatic way to approach adult relationships in a world of multivariate and complex human desires.

Progressives have always flattered themselves that time is on their side, that their preferences are in keeping with the arc of history. In the fight for marriage equality, this claim has made again and again. Many have challenged our politicians and our people to ask themselves whether they can imagine a future in which opposition to marriage equality is seen as a principled stance. I think it’s time to turn the question back on them: given what you know about the advancement of human rights, are you sure your opposition to group marriage won’t sound as anachronistic as opposition to gay marriage sounds to you now? And since we have insisted that there is no legitimate way to oppose gay marriage and respect gay love, how can you oppose group marriage and respect group love?

I suspect that many progressives would recognize, would pushed in this way, that the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice. What we’re left with is an unsatisfying patchwork of unconvincing arguments and bad ideas, ones embraced for short-term convenience at long-term cost. We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism. The course then, is clear: to look beyond political convenience and conservative intransigence, and begin to make the case for extending legal marriage rights to more loving and committed adults. It’s time.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3eBgtvUuQ

I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.

We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.

... Not according to the article, a cry for progressives unite! for the right of freedom of love for group of adults of any numbers.

Any.

Children rights in a polygamy situation? Back on the bus.

So you're ignoring the valid reasoning I gave against polygamy and simply referring to the opinion of an article?

Was the original question you asked not one simply of why we shouldn't object to polygamy? Because I explained why we do object to polygamy and how that is based on the inherent nature of a many-marrying-one relationship structure being unbalanced and therefore dysfunctional. As in vulnerable people who do not decide with truly informed consent in this matter need protecting from themselves being at risk from abuses which arise from unbalanced relationships.

Why keep repeating reference to an article which ignores the objective facts of the situation in order to promote their own agenda?

Vote Up, There would be some joy in the misery of seeing more than one woman at a time. this is just my opinion, hope so Polygamy get Legalized

Devil's advocate here. Posting an article does not mean I am supporting it. Sometime it does. Not this time. Check my post history.

I agree with your position.

Even so, it should be up to the individuals in question to decide what works for them or not. Bans on behavior because they are associated with certain undesirable traits are why marijuana is banned; it's why they tried to ban alcohol. The generalization that polygamous marriages are driven by dysfunctional responses is another instance in which individuality is supplanted by a generic set of supposed values. Polygamy may not work for most, that's not a justification to ban it for all.

If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.

This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...


Then after that, who knows...


 8)

. . .and lose.

The, 'slippery slope' argument is utterly absurd and, just like the idea that opposition to gay marriage is actually a defense of 'traditional' marriage, it is based, not on reasonable argument but, rather, loss of traditional Christian Privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional Christian Privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

rather, loss of traditional theist privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional theist privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

There, that should do it.

 ;)

why that desire to marriage eachother? does it makes you happier then you where with that person before marriage? or is it out of economic point of view? you know, taxes and stuff not about the golddiggers nor talking about those naturalisation marriages used and abused by lots of people. that would be another topic i think

For political reasons? For child adoption reasons? For inheritance reasons? To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?

We shall see.


 8)

ooohh i get it, for the love of paperwork !! ^^

A part of it, yes. A small part.

I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.

AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.

The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. During paediatric age however, in childhood itself a female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, there are more deaths among males as compared to the females during paediatric age. So looking at one of these scientific facts, no harm in polygamy legalization.

How about this harm I already pointed out?

You see, coming up with vague notions of elements of polygamy which might not be harmful is not exactly useful in the presence of a reasoned fact of how polygamy is harmful.

No, this is a correct interpretation as far as anyone can honestly represent. The government can't discriminate because it is the role of government to protect an individual's rights. Religious institutions are free to continue discriminating because they have no onus concerning rights, and it's a mutually voluntary association by the organization and the individual.

These are the countries which have legalized polygamy as of now (in black). Countries in light blue allow polygamy only for Muslim citizens, while polygamy is a criminal offence in the deep blue nations. In the Middle East, only the countries of Israel, Turkey and Tunisia does not allow polygamy. Polygamy is illegal everywhere in the Americas and the Europe.  :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Legality_of_polygamy.png/400px-Legality_of_polygamy.png

If your 'organization' gets tax exemptions, or any kind of government help while still opposed to ssm, wouldn't it be a violation of the law? Not just churches or mosques but universities with a catholic affiliation for example...


Wasn't polygamy the norm back in the old days... I mean the old old days.
Social evolution seems to tell us polygamy went out, based on structural reason, just like the dinosaurs...


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination is discrimination. I believe we will see more and more cases like this one in the future.


The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that the Roman Catholic owners of an Albany-area farm violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony in 2012.

Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, were ordered by DHR Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin for “mental pain and suffering.”

Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-their

So in some countries muslims have a different (better, more rights?) status than other citizens of that same country. Interesting...

Too bad that map is so small.

I don't know that it's a violation of the law, why would it be? First, I don't think any religious organization should have a tax exempt status, but nonetheless, I don't know how this has a bearing on the relevant circumstances of the situation. Taking a tax deduction doesn't make you an agent of the government.

The protection of rights is by the government, not individual organizations. I support gay marriage, but I don't support forcing any religious organization to perform a religious ceremony (and I, as an atheist, have no pony in that race. What religious organizations do privately affects me in no way.) Religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same, and this law should only be binding on civil marriage, and governments are the only institution involved in civil marriage.

Why do people need the blessings of the state for a marriage to be official? Why do people even want to get married in the first place? IF you want a partner have one. If you want multiple partners and they're ok with it have them. Don't see why multiple 'marriage' has to be legalized. Just have a ceremony yourself if you really want.

Let us see if this will stay true. It is not like lawyers tried that before... (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/knight-treating-the-mother-by-killing-the-baby/?page=all)

I do not understand why a church should be exempted either... Unless a church does a lot of social work, helps the poor, gives free food, etc... Which most do all the time. None stop.

Government should do stuff like anti personal mines to sell overseas and churches should take care of the souls of those at the receiving ends of those mines...

 8)

A book offering some insight into the inevitable future of human mating:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41V-zAQaZbL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Is love = trust = myth = an obsolete concept of possession and control?

This is a different legal issue altogether. That the owners of a business are Catholic bigots doesn't entitle their for-profit commercial enterprise to operate as though their Catholic bigotry over-rides their business obligation not to discriminate against their customers.

The fact that Hobby Lobby managed to twist the law into crow-barring the notion of the "deeply-held beliefs" of its owners into over-riding its obligations to its employees when it came to health insurance claims, should worry you far more than two people of the same gender wanting the state to stop discriminating against them.

Remember the bakery which wanted to pick and choose which customers it was willing to serve? People were quick to post misinformed clap-trap such as, "It's their business who they choose to serve", when the fact is, it isn't. If you run a for-profit business you are required to operate equally and fairly to all potential customers. The right of, say, managers of a Bar serving alcohol to refuse service is something entirely different and they are allowed to refuse service on the grounds that somebody is not fit to be consuming more alcohol.

Trouble is the fungelical loonies like to wrap the whole mess up into one and scream about being persecuted because their religious 'rights' are being 'trampled on'. But its no different to the Puritan settlers who first left England for America, not because they were fleeing persecution but because they were not being allowed to persecute those who did not want to accept their puritan demands. So they went to start a new country where they were free to persecute anybody who wasn't like them.

Which is how we get to the 'Deep South' religious insanity of today.

If your spouse give permission for you to marry again with another woman, I think it's okay. Maybe your first wife can't get pregnant or has a other problem. But if your spouse don't, how can you force her to do that, I mean you will hurt her heart. Whatever government will do about polygamy rules, it just depend on yourself to want it or not. Legalize polygamy doesn't mean government force you to do that.

It's kinda illegal in Turkey, But I've never heard that someone got punishment because of polygamy.
Islamic beliefs support that.

How it's done in Turkey?
1 wife is legal wife and others' marriage is in front of Allah (Imams makes those weddings).

Obviously Women don't have that right...

Jealousy is the myth, compersion (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/compersion) is true human nature.

Compersion

-The feeling of joy one has experiencing another's joy, such as in witnessing a toddler's joy and feeling joy in response.
-The feeling of joy associated with seeing a loved one love another; contrasted with jealousy.

No kidding...

I am in a monogamous relationship, but am polyamorous at heart. (Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved.)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Polyamory.svg

Polygamy or polyandry may sometimes be the consequence of there not being enough suitable mates of one sex in an otherwise polyamorous relationship and therefore I feel it is perfectly fine under those circumstances. Granted most people are too selfish, immature or small minded for a polyamorous relationship, but I see no reason why one person of one sex cannot be good for a group of people of the other sex when everyone is respectful and loving, especially if other potential mates are all proven less desirable or worse, assholes. While they are not equal in number, I think it's unfair to assume that they must also be unequal in love and respect or even power.

I believe the dysfunction you speak of is not a result of polygamy. It is when twisted individuals prey on weaker ones. This happens in monogamous marriage as well. It happens in every aspect of humanity, including economics and politics.


Emboldened is the essence of polyamory. I only wish more people were like this. The world would certainly be a better place.

<edit> I think I should add, although I've stated I'm in a monogamous relationship, my wife and I both feel our relationship need not be exclusive and is "open", but neither of us have found anyone suitable nor are we actively searching for someone else. We are perfectly happy being "monogamous", but not opposed to sharing either.

Same here. Paying rent in my city costs too much of my time to sustain multiple very intimate relationships, to say nothing of the rarity of compatible +young + mutually attractive +poly folk.

Everyone will be like this after a few more decades, the walls have already begun crumbling down for all the myths of religion, monogamy is simply the last one to go. 

As if this has never happened before throughout history... The walls crumble... Then it is rebuilt, then it goes down again... Over and over again. Nothing new.

I think if a fair amount of muslims start petitioning for it's legalization you'll see white liberals supporting the cause. If mormons want it however...

So true

 ;D ;D :D :D

I don't believe in a polygamous marriage. I mean, the point of marriage is being with an unique person.. I just never got my head around people having 4 wifes. If you want to fuck around, why not just stay single? We are in 2015, there's nothing wrong with not marring and staying single.
Also, I don't see who in hell is going to be able to maintain 4 wifes, assuming not all of them work. And if they do work, I can imagine the mess trying to divide each salary to pay bills and expenses, let alone the confused kids having "4 moms"..

Yes this is a common misunderstanding, and literally the ONLY valid argument that christians have against legalizing gay marriage.  But in reality there is no evedince that churches will be forced to marry gay people.  They just have to deal with other churches doing it if they so choose.

I think on the basic idea polygamy is ok, and there should be no problem with it.  But most of the time as mentioned above it is for unequal relationships.  Like in cults, and usually it involves minors too.  But it should be legal anyways, its like making piano wire illegal because someone used it to kill once before.  But anyway I think that people who want this lifestyle can have it, they just must have it "off the books", at least in america.

And don't get me started with muslims and how they treat their women, that is a whole other pandoras box.

*Already opened* (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888757.msg11726870#msg11726870)

Slavery was never returned after the violence to end slavery. Feudalism isn't making any comebacks either. Nor will monogamy, or capitalism when they fall to INTERNET + empathy.

It seems a lot of countries that are dealing (as in owning and selling) slaves today are also big fans of polygamy... This could be a coincidence...






We think of slavery as a practice of the past, an image from Roman colonies or 18th-century American plantations, but the practice of enslaving human beings as property still exists. There are 29.8 million people living as slaves right now, according to a comprehensive new report  issued by the Australia-based Walk Free Foundation.

This is not some softened, by-modern-standards definition of slavery. These 30 million people are living as forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages and, in all ways that matter, as pieces of property, chattel in the servitude of absolute ownership. Walk Free investigated 162 countries and found slaves in every single one. But the practice is far worse in some countries than others.

The country where you are most likely to be enslaved is Mauritania. Although this vast West African nation has tried three times to outlaw slavery within its borders, it remains so common that it is nearly normal. The report estimates that four percent of Mauritania is enslaved – one out of every 25 people. (The aid group SOS Slavery, using a broader definition of slavery, estimated several years ago that as  many as 20 percent of Mauritanians might be enslaved.)

The map at the top of this page shows almost every country in the world colored according to the share of its population that is enslaved. The rate of slavery is also alarmingly high in Haiti, in Pakistan and in India, the world's second-most populous country. In all three, more than 1 percent of the population is estimated to live in slavery.

A few trends are immediately clear from the map up top. First, rich, developed countries tend to have by far the lowest rates of slavery. The report says that effective government policies, rule of law, political stability and development levels all make slavery less likely. The vulnerable are less vulnerable, those who would exploit them face higher penalties and greater risk of getting caught. A war, natural disaster or state collapse is less likely to force helpless children or adults into bondage. Another crucial factor in preventing slavery is discrimination. When society treats women, ethnic groups or religious minorities as less valuable or less worthy of protection, they are more likely to become slaves.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/


***
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_world.htm


***

nothing I wrote implied this is the first time a taboo has fallen away. When America was 13 colonies, both homosexuality and masturbation were crimes punishable by death.

Change is the only constant.

They don't just want to destroy marriage, they want to destroy Christianity.