New season of Sister Wives starts tonight at 9 pm eastern

[Beetkvass]

So does anyone know how I can watch this if I don't have cable? I didn't see it listed on Netflix.

[unsinkable]

You mean they can actually make a law that dictates who you can and can not have living in your home with you? And what kind of relationship you can and can not choose to have with that person, what you can and can not choose to call them, etc? :001_huh:

 

eta: that sounds like it's only a step or two away from making it "illegal" to cheat on your husband or wife. (not speaking at all to the morality of it, just the legality)

 

Ummm...adultery used to be illegal most places and IIRC, it still is "on the books" in some states...

[LidiyaDawn]

Wow. I thought they just prosecuted people who had actually lied/falsified/whatever stuff to get more than one 'legal marriage' done up...I think they've gone WAY too far with it, being able to charge people outside of that.

[LidiyaDawn]

Ummm...adultery used to be illegal most places and IIRC, it still is "on the books" in some states...

 

Seriously?! :001_huh:

 

That's crazy. It's a moral thing, not a legal thing.

[LidiyaDawn]

Okay, I'm not finding any info on Canadian laws about adultery (I was curious), so I'm thinking maybe it was never illegal here, but I see a blurb here about the laws in the states...

 

Now I'm curious how polygamy is viewed (legally) here... *looking*

[unsinkable]

So does anyone know how I can watch this if I don't have cable? I didn't see it listed on Netflix.

 

It is on the Learning Channel. You can try to see if there are episodes there. Also, maybe try youtube or hulu?

 

It is probably too new for netflix.

[unsinkable]

Okay, I'm not finding any info on Canadian laws about adultery (I was curious), so I'm thinking maybe it was never illegal here, but I see a blurb here about the laws in the states...

 

Now I'm curious how polygamy is viewed (legally) here... *looking*

 

A woman was just charged with adultery recently in WNY. She was having *ahem* on a picnic table and she was known to be married by the arresting officer.

 

From the article:

 

Adultery has been part of the New York State Penal Code since at least 1907, according to a researcher with the State Legislative Library.

 

Only 12 people in the state have been charged with adultery, a Class B misdemeanor, in the last 38 years, the state Division of Criminal Justice Services reported.

 

Just one of the cases, in Erie County in 1989, originated in the eight counties of Western New York, and the last in New York was brought four years ago in Oneida County.

 

Of the 10 where the disposition of the case is known, four were dismissed, one saw prosecution declined, and five had convictions or guilty pleas.

 

One offender was fined, and the other four received conditional discharges, the state division reported.

 

Corona and Amend were issued appearance tickets Friday and released. They are scheduled to be arraigned in City Court today.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/southern-tier/article54630.ece

[LidiyaDawn]

Okay - looks like we have a law like that as well - scroll down until you hit section 293: Polygamy

 

I did see a CBC article that said there hasn't been a successful prosecution of a polygamy case in Canada in over 60 years though.

[LidiyaDawn]

A woman was just charged with adultery recently in WNY. She was having *ahem* on a picnic table and she was known to be married by the arresting officer.

 

"An officer saw the two having sex on a pavilion picnic table in view of children and other adults, police said."

 

Public lewdness or whatever sure fits :tongue_smilie: - but I just can't agree with charging someone with adultery... I mean goodness, the officer even said he didn't know if they still lived together (her and her husband) -- so you could actually apply this charge to someone who had split from her husband but never actually gotten the divorce done.

[Parrothead]

You mean they can actually make a law that dictates who you can and can not have living in your home with you? And what kind of relationship you can and can not choose to have with that person, what you can and can not choose to call them, etc? :001_huh:

 

eta: that sounds like it's only a step or two away from making it "illegal" to cheat on your husband or wife. (not speaking at all to the morality of it, just the legality)

We have something called common law marriage. If a man and woman live together as man and wife even though they are not legally married, after a certain time period (which varies from state to state) they are considered married for legal purposes such as beneficiaries, etc.

 

So I can see the stretch into common law polygamy. If it is illegal to be legally married to more than one person, it is just as illegal to be common law married to more than one person.

 

As of watching the show, I pretty much refuse to watch anything on TLC. I really think the channel should change its name to The Twaddle Channel.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Parrothead

[LidiyaDawn]

We have something called common law marriage. If a man and woman live together as man and wife even though they are not legally married, after a certain time period (which varies from state to state) they are considered married for legal purposes such as beneficiaries, etc.

 

So I can see the stretch into common law polygamy. If it is illegal to be legally married to more than one person, it is just as illegal to be common law married to more than one person.

 

As of watching the show, I pretty much refuse to watch anything on TLC. I really think the channel should change its name to The Twaddle Channel.

 

We have that up here as well - it varies from province to province as to how long the couple needs to have lived together and I think there's some other requirements (representing yourself as husband & wife, sharing certain things,etc), but it's pretty much the same thing as you guys have... I never thought about how that could stretch over....

[Rosie_0801]

As far as I can tell with the polygamists dh knows, they have one primary partner they live with, and their extra involvements live elsewhere- mostly with their own primary partners. So whether it is legal or only common law marriage, there is only one.

 

Rosie

[melmichigan]

I also read that they have all moved to Las Vegas and each wife has their own house now.

I think it got a little too hot for them with the investigation and all.

 

I certainly wouldn't want their lifestyle but I don't see the problem with it when the parents are consenting adults (no question of child bride in this one), they are supporting themselves, and the children are well cared for and loved. I guess I'm in the live and let live group. The fact that each wife would now have to have their own house actually makes me sad for them.

[Melinda in VT]

As far as I can tell with the polygamists dh knows, they have one primary partner they live with, and their extra involvements live elsewhere- mostly with their own primary partners. So whether it is legal or only common law marriage, there is only one.

 

Rosie

 

Do they consider themselves polygamous or polyamorous? The polyamorous people I know definitely have a distinction between their spouse and their other partners. The law seems to give weight to how the people in the relationship define it.

[Beetkvass]

It is on the Learning Channel. You can try to see if there are episodes there. Also, maybe try youtube or hulu?

 

It is probably too new for netflix.

 

Thanks, I checked hulu and the learning channel and they only have clips. I assume Netflix has no plans to carry it at this time because they give the option to add something in a "save" queue for when it becomes available. Oh well! Thanks though.

[DianeW88]

As a mainstream Mormon, I don't care what they call themselves. It's just that not many people are very familiar with our faith and tend to lump us all together. I have had the parents of one of my dear childhood friends ask if my husband had more than one wife like the Mormons on "Big Love". :blink: This is a woman who has know me since I was three years old. Why on earth she thought I'd put up with that, I'll never know. Of course, my smarty pants dh says, "No way. You know the problem with having more than one wife? You have more than one wife! And more than one MIL!" :lol: I'm still not sure she entirely believed us. :glare: That is why we feel like we have to mention the "disclaimer" when shows like this air. There is always someone......

[8circles]

Polygamy is not something that fits into my belief system at all. It certainly isn't for me. However, I have no problem with the show or the family that these people have created. I've watched a few episodes of the show & I think they seem pretty normal & people I could be friends with. I don't think that their marriages should be against the law. Although there would probably have to be some adjustment made for government programs to work "well" without fraud.

 

I also find it interesting that the ladies comment on their lifestyle helping to make them better people. I think I can see that in a way - you'd certainly have to work on not being jealous or selfish & work together for the common good - much more than in traditional marriage.

 

ETA: Sometimes I could really use another couple set of hands & then I imagine that there's a good practical side to the arrangement.

[Ravin]

As a mainstream Mormon, I don't care what they call themselves. It's just that not many people are very familiar with our faith and tend to lump us all together. I have had the parents of one of my dear childhood friends ask if my husband had more than one wife like the Mormons on "Big Love". :blink: This is a woman who has know me since I was three years old. Why on earth she thought I'd put up with that, I'll never know. Of course, my smarty pants dh says, "No way. You know the problem with having more than one wife? You have more than one wife! And more than one MIL!" :lol:

 

The thing I don't get is how someone who watches Big Love missed all the plot stuff about the tension between the senior protagonist wife and her family (and her own inner turmoil) because her family are LDS and she went with her husband into polygamy.

 

Anyway, as far as legal trouble for Kody and company, there is precedent in Utah for prosecuting polygamists under a combination of the bigamy law + common law marriage. One reason there are so many polygamists in N. Arizona is because Arizona isn't a common law state.

 

Usually in Utah they don't waste their energy going after quiet, consenting-adult, non welfare-fraud-commiting polygamists. There's a pretty big difference between the 'moderate' polygamist mormon churches/communities like they belong to and the likes of the FLDS, and a whole spectrum in between them.The family on the Sister Wives show have not been very quiet, which has gotten them in trouble.

 

I really need to find the show online, we don't have the channel they're on right now.

[justamouse]

Ohhh a train wreck for sure. I can never make it past "What possessed them to sign up for this?" I mean, apart from the whole sister wives thing-that husband needs inordinate amounts of attention and apparently his four wives and children aren't enough.

 

That of my husband isn't his to give away. It's mine. And it's not mine to give away, either, it's his. I am absolutely fine with being called jealous and selfish in this regard.

[Rosie_0801]

Do they consider themselves polygamous or polyamorous? The polyamorous people I know definitely have a distinction between their spouse and their other partners. The law seems to give weight to how the people in the relationship define it.

 

No you're right. It is polyamory.

 

It seems a worse way to raise kids than polygamy, from what I've been hearing. One of dh's friends broke up with the mother of his child, which of course happens plenty outside polyamorous groups, and another is having a child with someone who's primary partner he isn't. I'm sure the children survive. Children usually do survive divorces and such, but think friend #2 is going to find that heartbreak follows the joy of new baby pretty quickly. It all makes polygamy look far more responsible!

 

No, I am not dissing our resident poly-peeps. It's the lack of reproducing rules that's bothering me. With friend #2 I'm kind of wondering if he hasn't been around long enough to be aware of the community's rules for managing these situations. But maybe there aren't any. I dunno. And I doubt I'm going to find out because there is no way to ask anyone without sounding fiercely judgmental about the parts of the situation I'm not actually judgmental about. :)

 

Rosie

Edited March 26, 2011 by Rosie_0801

[Garga]

Polygamy has been around since people have been around and is perfectly normal in many societies today. Just not here. I feel that the only strange thing about Sister Wives is seeing polygamy being played out in our society.

 

If this were a show on the history channel or national geographic channel, we wouldn't think twice about it. We would realize that polygamy was acceptable in the past or in other countries. But watching a polygamous household of people who are alive today and are in our society, brings the whole issue closer to home. For just a moment, we can picture ourselves in the situation. Instead of polygamous people being in the distant past or in a distant land...suddenly it's right there in front of you.

 

Makes you think about how people live and believe and what is love and what is family.

[missesd]

The way I see it is it is a parenting decision as well. Some people do the family bed, others would gasp and say that was child abuse. Some extended BF, and I mean EXTENDED, others would say that was gross.

 

As long as all the children are HAPPY, and ok with their situation, and the adults are supporting them, I see no reason why if as a country we can be debating the existence of same sex marriage, and it's a good divide and split, then why this could not be ok also???

[Tea Time]

The way I see it is it is a parenting decision as well. Some people do the family bed, others would gasp and say that was child abuse. Some extended BF, and I mean EXTENDED, others would say that was gross.

 

As long as all the children are HAPPY, and ok with their situation, and the adults are supporting them, I see no reason why if as a country we can be debating the existence of same sex marriage, and it's a good divide and split, then why this could not be ok also???

 

Money, that's why. When it gets right down to it people (taxpayers) should not have to support every kind of possible marriage combination. It is true that some people do debate its existence, and it is true that the State has supported one kind of marriage and that has coincided with tradition and religion in the West, but if people are honest, that is really incidental. The real debate is about the State's interest in marriage.

 

We generally have a very free and open culture. People can marry, co-habitate, etc. if they wish to do so. The thing is that the State recognizes, for purely practical purposes, only one kind of marriage. That need not be a proclamation about a "right" (the State has no inherent ability to declare rights) or any kind of moral validation one way or another (the States ability to dictate morality is limited). Frankly, those things are not the job of the State. The only interest the State should have in marriage is the fact that it has the potential to produce children, so, as general policy, it should only support those marriage that have the highest potential to produce stable families. Even then, the State doesn't really have that much of an interest. And one can argue that the State's interference may do more harm than good.

 

In order to make sure it does not OVERSTEP its boundaries into what are really family matters (read that as suck the financial life out of us and instigate invasive rules and regulations), it is best to keep its interest to a minimum. The best way to do that, in reality, is to limit the definition of marriage.

 

Keeping marriages that are recognized by the State (people are all still free to marry, just not register that union with the State) to one man/one woman effectively curbs the ability of the State to wrangle funds from us all in order to support "marriages" of types and varieties that might eventually go far and wide in their definition thus tapping taxpayer funds that were never really intended for those purposes. So you see, it is a budget issue.

 

Now, how people personally define the concept should be up to them and the churches and networks with which they associate. So other family arrangements should be left up to people to work out to the best of their ability without expecting the State to be involved in every aspect.

 

At least that is the way I see it. If someone wants to educate their child, they should not wait for the state to grant that right or pay for it. If you want to marry two women, or if two men want to marry, then they had better not wait around for Uncle Sam's stamp of approval, and they should not ask taxpayers to help support them. We are having enough trouble with the one kind of marriage.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

But,....if someone wants to bring their religion into "the interest of the State" then that does NOT fly. (trying to keep gay people from marrying, for example) You can either call it "a covenant between the couple and god" OR a state issue, not both.

 

My dh and I were married in a courthouse. It is NOT a religious agreement/covenant, etc.

[unsinkable]

Money, that's why. When it gets right down to it people (taxpayers) should not have to support every kind of possible marriage combination. It is true that some people do debate its existence, and it is true that the State has supported one kind of marriage and that has coincided with tradition and religion in the West, but if people are honest, that is really incidental. The real debate is about the State's interest in marriage.

 

We generally have a very free and open culture. People can marry, co-habitate, etc. if they wish to do so. The thing is that the State recognizes, for purely practical purposes, only one kind of marriage. That need not be a proclamation about a "right" (the State has no inherent ability to declare rights) or any kind of moral validation one way or another (the States ability to dictate morality is limited). Frankly, those things are not the job of the State. The only interest the State should have in marriage is the fact that it has the potential to produce children, so, as general policy, it should only support those marriage that have the highest potential to produce stable families. Even then, the State doesn't really have that much of an interest. And one can argue that the State's interference may do more harm than good.

 

In order to make sure it does not OVERSTEP its boundaries into what are really family matters (read that as suck the financial life out of us and instigate invasive rules and regulations), it is best to keep its interest to a minimum. The best way to do that, in reality, is to limit the definition of marriage.

 

Keeping marriages that are recognized by the State (people are all still free to marry, just not register that union with the State) to one man/one woman effectively curbs the ability of the State to wrangle funds from us all in order to support "marriages" of types and varieties that might eventually go far and wide in their definition thus tapping taxpayer funds that were never really intended for those purposes. So you see, it is a budget issue.

 

Now, how people personally define the concept should be up to them and the churches and networks with which they associate. So other family arrangements should be left up to people to work out to the best of their ability without expecting the State to be involved in every aspect.

 

At least that is the way I see it. If someone wants to educate their child, they should not wait for the state to grant that right or pay for it. If you want to marry two women, or if two men want to marry, then they had better not wait around for Uncle Sam's stamp of approval, and they should not ask taxpayers to help support them. We are having enough trouble with the one kind of marriage.

 

Tea Time,

 

I think you might have written a post like this before, right? Is there a name for this explanation? Or a book that expounds on it? I'd like to read more in depth if there is.

 

Let me know if my question makes sense.:tongue_smilie:

[jec3113]

This show is gross. Why isn't he in jail?

[clarkacademy]

I watched a couple of episodes, but I just couldn't watch it.....maybe i am in the minority.....

 

Dawn

 

I don't think you are the minority anymore. I have never seen a show just previews and no way will I do anything to boost ratings to that.

[Tea Time]

But,....if someone wants to bring their religion into "the interest of the State" then that does NOT fly. (trying to keep gay people from marrying, for example) You can either call it "a covenant between the couple and god" OR a state issue, not both.

 

My dh and I were married in a courthouse. It is NOT a religious agreement/covenant, etc.

 

Religion need not be invoked to turn away from State support of such unions. I suggest, if one looks at it from a purely evolutionary/materialist POV, that most religions turned away from such unions because they did not fit with civilization on the large scale, predominately because asking the State (remember the State is either a dictatorial person/group or The People) to subsidize too diverse a definition of marriage is simply impractical. It causes several levels of descent, and to be perfectly honest, it starts sucking too many resources. It costs too much. And it doesn't take anything but common sense to realize that the biological link to offspring is probably the best one to put your money on. Combined resources being allocated to the surest bet is good public policy and has nothing to do with discrimination against people, it is simply a way to allocate resources that belong to a wide range of people with a wide range of beliefs and customs.

 

But can you see how confusing and confounding the ideas could be used by groups to gain power and access to these resources? Furthermore, if the ideas can be confounded, people with an ax to grind against religion will have leverage to do damage to those organizations by confusing the ideas of "rights" and "bigotry" etc. thus inserting their own agenda into those organizations instead of allowing them to be free. We see this argument against State intrusion into homeschooling, don't we?

 

Tea Time,

 

I think you might have written a post like this before, right? Is there a name for this explanation? Or a book that expounds on it? I'd like to read more in depth if there is.

 

Let me know if my question makes sense.:tongue_smilie:

 

Yes, I have. And I don't have an ax to grind in this issue nor is it my pet issue. It is just that sometime people ask such a clear and distinct question about it that I can't help but give them an answer.

 

I don't think it has a name, because it is just a basic idea that has been forgotten and subverted. It is based on something one can call the Natural Law (not as in physics). It is definitely not my idea, but I have always thought it was, in reality, the one most consistent with a scientific view of the issue. It reminds me though, how reason is not always at the basis of making public policy.

 

Here is an article that explains it much more thoroughly. Yes, it is a conservative site, but it remains that the POV is the most rational and logical that I can find. Any other will cause profound upheaval in our culture and result in much less freedom if you are honest and think about it deeply without the emotional baggage. It would require though, that people understand that the State does not give rights, and that the State is not the one that legitimizes relationships. It just allocates resources (it ain't God, okay?). It is not a personal judgement against certain relationships, it is just a practical solution to a social issue. People would still be free to make personal judgments about all this, the State would just stop taking sides based on those judgments. The State's involvement would be based on a biological fact and nothing more.

 

People are free, and should be free, to marry. What they can't do is force others to recognize that relationship or to subsidize it because the State has no right to require such things from people, no more right than it has to encourage some religions. Perhaps the laws can be tweaked to be more fair on some things, allowing social unions to work more smoothly, but a wholesale forcing of the population to recognize and financially support other relationships as being "the same" as traditional marriage would stop being the job of the State - because it is not the job of the State, no more than it is the job of the State to make anyone take Jesus as their savior. Those things, if they are to happen at all, should be freely chosen by people who are convinced of their truth. That is how real social change takes place, anything else is oppression. ;)

 

I am not holding my breath for such reason to dawn on people.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors?page=1

[Beetkvass]

This show is gross. Why isn't he in jail?

 

Many things of a sexual nature that are common now were once illegal. What happens is that people just stop obeying the law and it grows normal. I think most people recognize that it's seriously hypocritical to say that two men or two women can have their own family/marriage (whether legal or not) but that a man and more than one woman can't. The tradition behind polygamy is thousands of years old.

 

It's legal in one state to sell your body for sex. It's legal in all states to strip for money. It's legal to have sex on camera and sell it for public viewing. It's legal to abort your unborn. I can personally hardly find polygamy offensive after those things. I think it's sort of out dated and stupid in light of all the things that ARE legal to keep this one illegal. All those things listed above were once illegal.

[clarkacademy]

Many things of a sexual nature that are common now were once illegal. What happens is that people just stop obeying the law and it grows normal. I think most people recognize that it's seriously hypocritical to say that two men or two women can have their own family/marriage (whether legal or not) but that a man and more than one woman can't. The tradition behind polygamy is thousands of years old.

 

It's legal in one state to sell your body for sex. It's legal in all states to strip for money. It's legal to have sex on camera and sell it for public viewing. It's legal to abort your unborn. I can personally hardly find polygamy offensive after those things. I think it's sort of out dated and stupid in light of all the things that ARE legal to keep this one illegal. All those things listed above were once illegal.

 

I think to some people it does not matter what the books say, or society says. I think to some people those things are still "illegal". It is not exactly a law that an officer can come take you in for it is what we feel, what we think, what we just know to be right. I am not judging, just no way am I condoning. To each their own you have to answer for it when you meet the maker is how I see it. I also see it as sad. I see most things as just sad nowadays.

[Tea Time]

Many things of a sexual nature that are common now were once illegal. What happens is that people just stop obeying the law and it grows normal. I think most people recognize that it's seriously hypocritical to say that two men or two women can have their own family/marriage (whether legal or not) but that a man and more than one woman can't. The tradition behind polygamy is thousands of years old.

Exactly, but they do not expect everyone to agree with their behavior, and they do not expect the State to pay for it. If it is to gain real acceptance, they will have to be very convincing (good luck with that). To force people to accept their behavior will likely do their cause far more damage than just going about their business.

 

We should be free as individuals to assess these behaviors and not forced to accept them against our conscience. Freedom requires that.

 

It's legal in one state to sell your body for sex. It's legal in all states to strip for money. It's legal to have sex on camera and sell it for public viewing. It's legal to abort your unborn. I can personally hardly find polygamy offensive after those things. I think it's sort of out dated and stupid in light of all the things that ARE legal to keep this one illegal. All those things listed above were once illegal.

Technically, it is not illegal. It is just not recognized and subsidized like one man/one women marriages. I think someone already pointed out that most of these "marriages" have only one legally recognized union, the others are extraneous. There is a difference between legal as in recognized by the State and legal as in "coming to take you to jail." Confusing these ideas calls the State into the situation and causes problems.

 

That is exactly why I favor a law that would define marriage recognized and supported by the State as between man/woman while other relationships would be recognized on the personal level or by organizations outside the State. They would not be considered criminal behavior. Employers could be free to subsidize whatever relationships they could afford (good luck with that), but the State would not work that way - because the State's money is everyone's money, and everyone does not agree on the definition of marriage these days. :confused:

 

This is just practical stuff, folks. If we think of it as organizing the situation to allow diverse opinions and ideas to co-exist, then we must LIMIT the State's involvement by sticking to a biological definition. Otherwise we invite chaos. Either the State starts going into homes and dragging people to jail, OR they start going into Churches and dragging people to jail. Some people may want those outcomes, but I don't want EITHER! :thumbdown:

 

It is because we are confused about the State's role that we endanger our freedom.

[KristinaBreece]

This is just practical stuff, folks. If we think of it as organizing the situation to allow diverse opinions and ideas to co-exist, then we must LIMIT the State's involvement by sticking to a biological definition. Otherwise we invite chaos. Either the State starts going into homes and dragging people to jail, OR they start going into Churches and dragging people to jail. Some people may want those outcomes, but I don't want EITHER! :thumbdown:

 

It is because we are confused about the State's role that we endanger our freedom.

 

I totally see your reasoning on this, but I guess I would lean the other way on it. Maybe the state should not recognize any relationship as a marriage, it should be between the individuals and their religions. Then there should be a private, legal way to set your partner (or partners, in their case) with the legal rights (hospital visitation and the like) by filing the applicable paperwork and/or permits.

[Tea Time]

I totally see your reasoning on this, but I guess I would lean the other way on it. Maybe the state should not recognize any relationship as a marriage, it should be between the individuals and their religions. Then there should be a private, legal way to set your partner (or partners, in their case) with the legal rights (hospital visitation and the like) by filing the applicable paperwork and/or permits.

 

To what end do we need such recognition of these partners?

 

If it is only practical purposes having to do with property or visitation, then I agree that, if it is necessary as a separate measure, laws can be adjusted so that some legal rights can be given to a variety of relationships. And as I said, private citizens and businesses should be able to recognize whomever they wish in providing benefits. No problem with that. Language about marriage should conform to what people have been convinced to believe in their own, personal relationships and personal networks. Churches can have their own while other networks have their own. People are free to decide the issue for themselves and to convince others over time one way or the other, peacefully, without the Power of the State forcing them.

 

But as to the State no longer recognizing marriage, I've thought about that, and it is the position of most libertarians. It has great appeal, but it is not necessary except to make some kind of point, which is not the job of the State - to force us how to think about things. In addition, it is unrealistic and would cause great, social upheaval.

 

For example, if you consider our military, it is set up to provide vast benefits to family. They do that so that we can have a volunteer military, because no one in their right mind would join the military if they could not be assured of family support, and it is exactly in this arena that we will break the bank trying to please everyone. It is exactly because of this that we do need some, limited State involvement in marital relationships, and it is exactly this that demonstrates that it should be limited to the most likely relationship to provide financial and emotional stability for children.

 

Providing for the emotional support of adults is not the point of State involvement. Making people feel "approval" about their choice of partners is not the point. It is unfortunate if it hurts some people's feelings, but defining it outside this framework (man/woman = child) is too complex and far too likely to invite fraud. If you do not think that people will use that "setting of partners" for no other purpose than to gain for themselves vast benefits under the law, then I think you are mistaken. It would be perfectly legal to set a partner while serving in the military, then dissolving that "partnership" when they got out. And it would technically be perfectly legal. Without ANY moral or societal pressures brought to bear on this, then people have no compunction about doing such things. Why should they? People no doubt already do that to some extent, but we need not make it public policy.

 

Imagine if the State no longer thought of poly-marriages as "illegal," and partners or civil unions took the place of traditional marriage. You could set up as many partners as you want (because that is "fair" for bisexuals after all). Now the military and all State jobs have to provide benefits to 2, 3, 4 partners? Probably not a good financial decision right there. Make it legal as in, "we won't cart you off to jail," but not legal as in having the same status as tradition marriage. Get it? That is what this is about. We are not going to support every imaginable form of personal union. It comes down to a budget issue regarding the allocation of scarce resources. We will draw a line somewhere, so let us have biology draw it for us.

 

Furthermore, under such a set up, people would be forced to financially support a variety of unions for which they do not know the purpose. Children are the only reason we support marriage with the State, not satisfying sex or convenience. Marriage is just as much a responsibility and obligation in the view of the State. No such expectations are brought to bear on other relationships.

 

Notice that not one of these arguments is about religion, yet the bottom line does support all manner of religious freedom, as well it should, because it is not the State's job to dictate our beliefs.

 

Forgive me for taking over this thread. I have a head cold and nothing else to do today. :D

[unsinkable]

To what end do we need such recognition of these partners?

 

If it is only practical purposes having to do with property or visitation, then I agree that, if it is necessary as a separate measure, laws can be adjusted so that some legal rights can be given to a variety of relationships. And as I said, private citizens and businesses should be able to recognize whomever they wish in providing benefits. No problem with that. Language about marriage should conform to what people have been convinced to believe in their own, personal relationships and personal networks. Churches can have their own while other networks have their own. People are free to decide the issue for themselves and to convince others over time one way or the other, peacefully, without the Power of the State forcing them.

 

But as to the State no longer recognizing marriage, I've thought about that, and it is the position of most libertarians. It has great appeal, but it is not necessary except to make some kind of point, which is not the job of the State - to force us how to think about things. In addition, it is unrealistic and would cause great, social upheaval.

 

For example, if you consider our military, it is set up to provide vast benefits to family. They do that so that we can have a volunteer military, because no one in their right mind would join the military if they could not be assured of family support, and it is exactly in this arena that we will break the bank trying to please everyone. It is exactly because of this that we do need some, limited State involvement in marital relationships, and it is exactly this that demonstrates that it should be limited to the most likely relationship to provide financial and emotional stability for children.

 

Providing for the emotional support of adults is not the point of State involvement. Making people feel "approval" about their choice of partners is not the point. It is unfortunate if it hurts some people's feelings, but defining it outside this framework (man/woman = child) is too complex and far too likely to invite fraud. If you do not think that people will use that "setting of partners" for no other purpose than to gain for themselves vast benefits under the law, then I think you are mistaken. It would be perfectly legal to set a partner while serving in the military, then dissolving that "partnership" when they got out. And it would technically be perfectly legal. Without ANY moral or societal pressures brought to bear on this, then people have no compunction about doing such things. Why should they? People no doubt already do that to some extent, but we need not make it public policy.

 

Imagine if the State no longer thought of poly-marriages as "illegal," and partners or civil unions took the place of traditional marriage. You could set up as many partners as you want (because that is "fair" for bisexuals after all). Now the military and all State jobs have to provide benefits to 2, 3, 4 partners? Probably not a good financial decision right there. Make it legal as in, "we won't cart you off to jail," but not legal as in having the same status as tradition marriage. Get it? That is what this is about. We are not going to support every imaginable form of personal union. It comes down to a budget issue regarding the allocation of scarce resources. We will draw a line somewhere, so let us have biology draw it for us.

 

Furthermore, under such a set up, people would be forced to financially support a variety of unions for which they do not know the purpose. Children are the only reason we support marriage with the State, not satisfying sex or convenience. Marriage is just as much a responsibility and obligation in the view of the State. No such expectations are brought to bear on other relationships.

 

Notice that not one of these arguments is about religion, yet the bottom line does support all manner of religious freedom, as well it should, because it is not the State's job to dictate our beliefs.

 

Forgive me for taking over this thread. I have a head cold and nothing else to do today. :D

 

I don't consider it taking over. I think it adds a valuable component to the discussion. :D

 

Thanks for your posts on this topic. I can't recall having heard of a non-religious explanation to support "marriage" as being only male-female before. Maybe I have, but you do such a good job expaining it, it sticks in my head.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I know I'm going to come off sounding stupid here, but I don't understand how the government is subsidizing marraiges?

 

 

I just so happened to read the UCMJ the other day as well as the Military Code of Conduct and, imagine my surprise to discover that a few "Tea-Time practices" that dh and I enjoy are AGAINST CODE. That's right: We are in violation of the Military Code of Conduct. Lucky for us we don't allow a JAG into our bedroom. ;)

 

Allowing gay marraige wouldn't push out all hetero marraiges. It isn't either/or.

[Tea Time]

I know I'm going to come off sounding stupid here, but I don't understand how the government is subsidizing marraiges?

If you don't even know what resources go into supporting and encouraging marriage, and I do not think you are stupid for that nor unique, then it is no wonder that this issue is so misunderstood and so easily used to manipulate public opinion by groups with an interest to do so.

 

Suffice it to say that there are VAST military benefits doled out to spouses and children. They would be easily exploited by people who wanted to accumulate benefits for "partners" then move on. Easy to exploit. Then there are civil jobs and taxes to consider. I do not know all the resources allocated to this, but the amount I know of is extensive. It is costly to support marriage, but we do so for the sake of encouraging family stability in raising children.

 

I have always thought that the real reason to go to the mat for the "right" to marry is about assets and resources as well as political agendas, not about people being denied the ability to commit to one another and share their burdens in a life long commitment. Yeah, call me jaded, but I think people have been free to do that all along.

 

They are not falling all over themselves about how they are not going to be able to devote themselves "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health" unless they get a stamp of approval from Uncle Sam, they are clamoring for government subsidies and benefits. And who can blame them? I certainly don't blame them. That is why, in my very first post, I said we are having enough trouble with the one kind of marriage. We can't really afford to do what we have already promised. There is an ongoing struggle for the collective resources (taxes), so figuring out how to allocate tax money is an ongoing struggle, often politically and emotionally loaded. We should make cool headed decisions whenever we can.

 

The other motivation, as I have pointed out, would be using the power of the State to change people's thinking. Recognition of the State for alternative unions is thought, by some, to be making those unions "legitimate." But that is not the purpose of government. That is not in the government's power. And such attempts to use State power in that manner will always be coercive. So we better be careful when/how we coerce, right?

 

I just so happened to read the UCMJ the other day as well as the Military Code of Conduct and, imagine my surprise to discover that a few "Tea-Time practices" that dh and I enjoy are AGAINST CODE. That's right: We are in violation of the Military Code of Conduct. Lucky for us we don't allow a JAG into our bedroom. ;)

 

Allowing gay marraige wouldn't push out all hetero marraiges. It isn't either/or.

You are assuming that the concern of the debate is about how people feel about marriage, and I have shown that that is not the real issue. That is a nice red herring.

 

Some people may fear that allowing gay marriage, or poly-marriages, or any other kind of marriage, will push out hetero marriages, but I am not making that argument. I am making the argument, here and now, that it will make us bankrupt and will restrict our freedom of thought. Well, more bankrupt.

 

This is the non-religious argument for defining marriage as between one man and one women. It is not the only argument being put out there. It is clearly not the most common one being heard (or ever being heard). But I suggest that it is a very good one. So, if you hear that everyone who is against the legalization of gay marriage is a bigot, you have to admit that that doesn't hold water. Some are just cheap and like freedom. ;)

Edited March 27, 2011 by Tea Time

[Tea Time]

I don't consider it taking over. I think it adds a valuable component to the discussion. :D

 

Thanks for your posts on this topic. I can't recall having heard of a non-religious explanation to support "marriage" as being only male-female before. Maybe I have, but you do such a good job expaining it, it sticks in my head.

 

Thanks! And thanks for a little distraction today. :001_smile:

[Slartibartfast]

Tea Time, I hate to mention this but your argument sounds like the argument for Slavery in the Constitution.

 

You cannot say you love freedom while using it as a basis for limiting the freedom of others. I don't agree that it is ok to deny other's freedom because we cannot afford otherwise or that it keeps the rest of us more free. I don't believe that is true.

 

 

People cannot even have rights as parents, it isn't true that it is purely a financial argument clamouring for benefits.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Sis

[Tea Time]

Tea Time, I hate to mention this but your argument sounds like the argument for Slavery in the Constitution.

 

You cannot say you love freedom while using it as a basis for limiting the freedom of others. I don't agree that it is ok to deny other's freedom because we cannot afford otherwise or that it keeps the rest of us more free. I don't believe that is true.

 

 

People cannot even have rights as parents, it isn't true that it is purely a financial argument clamouring for benefits.

 

That's funny, because you sound rather gleeful, really.

 

And your counter-argument sounds a lot like propaganda. Emotional bomb throwing. So, there we are.

 

What freedom is being limited again? Be very specific please, because I have pointed out that I feel that people who desire to commit themselves to one another in a life long union have been free to do so for a long time. We could not even stop that if we wanted to do so, and that is marriage, and the State doesn't bestow it or own it or give it. It just allocates some benefits for the purpose of encouraging strong families (fail).

 

So, tell me again how denying some benefits to some people is anything like slavery? Because I would really, really like a few Pell Grants for my kids, and if I could accuse people of denying me "rights," and treating me like a "slave" to get them, than that would be great.

 

You can't just throw out a word and say it is the same thing. Slavery is an act perpetrated on a person, it is not simply the State deciding what benefits to give to whom under what criteria. If that is the definition of slavery, then there are a lot of slaves out there because there are plenty of people not getting this or that benefit because of this or that "rule," and the government may as well close up shop now.

 

Plus you have not addressed (why bother when you can just throw bombs) the limiting of freedom for people who do not want their tax money to be used to support every imaginable civil union. What about them being slaves to the State? What about the State coercing people into "belief." Is that okay with you?

 

Propaganda. If you repeat an emotional charged idea long enough, people believe it despite the lack of reasoning behind it. People who do that make this issue very muddy and this Republic soon to be ancient history.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Tea Time

[Slartibartfast]

That's funny, because you sound rather gleeful, really.

 

And your counter-argument sounds a lot like propaganda. Emotional bomb throwing. So, there we are.

 

What freedom is being limited again? Be very specific please, because I have pointed out that I feel that people who desire to commit themselves to one another in a life long union have been free to do so for a long time. We could not even stop that if we wanted to do so, and that is marriage, and the State doesn't bestow it or own it or give it. The just allocate some benefits for the purpose of encouraging strong families (fail).

 

So, tell me again how denying some benefits to some people is anything like slavery? Because I would really, really like a few Pell Grants for my kids, and if I could accuse people of denying me "rights," and treating me like a "slave" to get them, than that would be great.

 

You can't just throw out a word and say it is the same thing. Slavery is an act perpetrated on a person, it is not simply the State deciding what benefits to give to whom under what criteria. If that is the definition of slavery, then there are a lot of slaves out there because there are plenty of people not getting this or that benefit because of this or that "rule," and the government may as well close up shop now.

 

Plus you have not addressed (why bother when you can just throw bombs) the limiting of freedom for people who do not want their tax money to be used to support every imaginable civil union. What about them being slaves to the State? What about the State coercing people into "belief." Is that okay with you?

 

Propaganda. If you repeat an emotional charged idea long enough, people believe it despite the lack of reasoning behind it. People who do that make this issue very muddy and this Republic soon to be ancient history.

 

I am not gleeful at all.

 

I said it was similar to the argument, not that it was similar to slavery itself. I do think it is a Civil Right.

 

Some states prohibit adoption if the parents are not married. While most states permit GLBT adoption, they do not specifically grant adoption rights to second parents or prohibit joint adoption.

 

It is far more reaching than just financial issues.

 

The very basis for a Republic is preventing the tyranny of the majority from limiting the rights of the few.

 

And no, I am not ok with people using "my tax dollars" as a basis for treating other people differently. Same sex couples should receive military benefits. Who is at home waiting for that soldier? Who is taking care of that soldier's children? Who is going to mourn that soldier? I would fight for that soldier to choose who gets their benefits because they are the ones who would stand between me and tyranny, the least I could do would be to return the favor.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Sis

[hana]

Tea Time, I hate to mention this but your argument sounds like the argument for Slavery in the Constitution.

 

You cannot say you love freedom while using it as a basis for limiting the freedom of others. I don't agree that it is ok to deny other's freedom because we cannot afford otherwise or that it keeps the rest of us more free. I don't believe that is true.

 

 

People cannot even have rights as parents, it isn't true that it is purely a financial argument clamouring for benefits.

 

Thank you for this.

 

Also, I cannot wrap my head around how my marriage to another woman would impinge on anyone else's "freedom of thought."

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't get the argument that anyone would be "subsidizing" such marriages/partnerships.

 

It's true that the military takes care of the families of soldiers. It is *also* true that soldiers sometimes make very stupid decisions based on that fact like marrying someone they feel the need to take care of, or marrying another soldier so that they make more money. You see plenty of what you are describing as fraud (not that I would characterize it that way) right now. How would that change?

 

Right now, many single parents don't get married because they get more government assistance while single. We are subsidizing those decisions now.

 

I'm in favor of allowing any two people to form a permanent partnership for the purposes of insurance, housing, legal decisions, etc. I think of my uncles who are both life-long bachelors. I think they should be able to take care of each other if it was necessary.

[Tea Time]

Thank you for this.

 

Also, I cannot wrap my head around how my marriage to another woman would impinge on anyone else's "freedom of thought."

 

If everyone's taxes are used to pay for benefits for our polygamous friend here (the show in the OP), then that would be not only impinging on our freedom of thought, but on our wallets. I am having equal difficulty wrapping my head around not getting that. :confused:

 

Look, I am trying to figure out a way to arrange our affairs to allow freedom for people to define relationships on a personal and network level, so that diversity, like you see in this show, can be allowed (no one going off to jail) but not forced on people (no one going off to jail). And if we could keep from going bankrupt in the process, then that would be really nice. I have tried to be gracious and not judgmental in process because it really isn't about judgment.

 

Calling me a bigot (indirectly) in response is really nice. Thanks for that.

[Pretty in Pink]

If everyone's taxes are used to pay for benefits for our polygamous friend here (the show in the OP), then that would be not only impinging on our freedom of thought, but on our wallets. I am having equal difficulty wrapping my head around not getting that.

 

Tax dollars are allocated in innumerable ways that not everyone agrees with though, right? How is this issue any different?

 

Trust me, there are plenty of service members who are marrying for the sole purpose of securing benefits for and with parnters with whom they do not intend to raise a family with or spend the rest of their lives with. It happens every day.

[Mrs Mungo]

If everyone's taxes are used to pay for benefits for our polygamous friend here (the show in the OP), then that would be not only impinging on our freedom of thought, but on our wallets. I am having equal difficulty wrapping my head around not getting that. :confused:

 

What benefits is that family receiving from the government? They were all living in the same house with 3 of the four adults working.

 

Tax dollars are allocated in innumerable ways that not everyone agrees with though, right? How is this issue any different?

 

:iagree: Except, I don't understand what benefits they are supposedly receiving?

 

Trust me, there are plenty of service members who are marrying for the sole purpose of securing benefits for and with parnters with whom they do not intend to raise a family with or spend the rest of their lives with. It happens every day.

 

:iagree:

[Tea Time]

Nice to hear from you Ms. M. I appreciate your thoughtful post. Good points. Did you read back a bit to see the entirety of my argument? I think I covered your points, but I am happy to address them here a bit, too.

 

I don't get the argument that anyone would be "subsidizing" such marriages/partnerships.

 

It's true that the military takes care of the families of soldiers. It is *also* true that soldiers sometimes make very stupid decisions based on that fact like marrying someone they feel the need to take care of, or marrying another soldier so that they make more money. You see plenty of what you are describing as fraud (not that I would characterize it that way) right now. How would that change? [/Quote]

I don't think it would change, I just think the over all cost would expand and the amount of fraud would expand accordingly. That is one argument for holding the current definition of marriage as it stands, to try to continue to be able to meet the demands of just that one kind of marriage. Again, not for the purpose of making value judgments on every relationship, but for the purpose of being prudent, of keeping a budget. That was my original point. Why keep other forms of marriage illegal? Because we can't afford to pay everyone for everything. That is not a value judgement, that is economics. It is a good use of resources to aim them at encouraging stable families because of children.

 

Right now, many single parents don't get married because they get more government assistance while single. We are subsidizing those decisions now. [/Quote]

Yes, we are making numerous bad decisions because we can't endorse the one kind of marriage that is designed by nature to support children, but this just supports my argument further, doesn't it?

 

I'm in favor of allowing any two people to form a permanent partnership for the purposes of insurance, housing, legal decisions, etc. I think of my uncles who are both life-long bachelors. I think they should be able to take care of each other if it was necessary.

I think, if we were clear thinking on this issue, and we were really looking at it without other agendas at work, we could come to some kind of arrangement that would favor certain types of civil unions for practical and unemotional purposes like you are suggesting. I think the private sector is already doing this to some extent. There has been blustering about boycotts against those places, but not about laws to force such businesses out of existence. That is a vital distinction, see? The real limiting factor for this is economic. If business (or government) who do that sort of thing get so bogged down they go under, then their nice intents really are of no consequence, are they? But they are trying to sort that out in the private sector, and I think that should continue. We'll see where it goes.

 

I just don't think we are in a place where we should force the State to do such things, for financial reason, but also because our society is not in consensus and it would be forcing the issue unnecessarily. That is just the reality.

[tex-mex]

 

As of watching the show, I pretty much refuse to watch anything on TLC. I really think the channel should change its name to The Twaddle Channel.

Ever since the nightmare we call Jon & Kate Plus 8... um, you can bet your sweet bippy I have stopped watching anything on TLC. Aiiiyyyeeee. ;)

[Tea Time]

Tax dollars are allocated in innumerable ways that not everyone agrees with though, right? How is this issue any different?

 

Trust me, there are plenty of service members who are marrying for the sole purpose of securing benefits for and with parnters with whom they do not intend to raise a family with or spend the rest of their lives with. It happens every day.

 

For one thing, people are suggesting that if you don't agree with this particular allocation, you are a bigot and in favor of slavery. :D

 

You are completely right about the fraud issues. How will that improve if we further expand the definition of marriage to include gay marriage or polygamy? I am not seeing that helping, and I see us tottering so far on the brink of collapse that it might push us over. We have to start saying no to some things. Why not start by saying no to things that vastly expand benefits?

 

Right now our friend, the polygamist, lives his dream, but because the definition of marriage is one man/one woman, we don't pay for his dream. He is NOT receiving benefits for multiple wives. (Whew!) That is a-okay with me. Which is what would happen, Ms. M., if we start monkeying with the biological definition of marriage (man+woman=child).

[Slartibartfast]

For one thing, people are suggesting that if you don't agree with this particular allocation, you are a bigot and in favor of slavery. :D

 

You are completely right about the fraud issues. How will that improve if we further expand the definition of marriage to include gay marriage or polygamy? I am not seeing that helping, and I see us tottering so far on the brink of collapse that it might push us over. We have to start saying no to some things. Why not start by saying no to things that vastly expand benefits?

 

Right now our friend, the polygamist, lives his dream, but because the definition of marriage is one man/one woman, we don't pay for his dream. He is NOT receiving benefits for multiple wives. (Whew!) That is a-okay with me. Which is what would happen, Ms. M., if we start monkeying with the biological definition of marriage (man+woman=child).

 

No one called you a bigot or said you were in favor of slavery.

 

If he was in the military we would be paying for all those children. Do you think military families should be limited on the number of children we will pay for? Should we only pay for say.....3?

Edited March 28, 2011 by Sis

[hana]

If everyone's taxes are used to pay for benefits for our polygamous friend here (the show in the OP), then that would be not only impinging on our freedom of thought, but on our wallets. I am having equal difficulty wrapping my head around not getting that. :confused:

 

Look, I am trying to figure out a way to arrange our affairs to allow freedom for people to define relationships on a personal and network level, so that diversity, like you see in this show, can be allowed (no one going off to jail) but not forced on people (no one going off to jail). And if we could keep from going bankrupt in the process, then that would be really nice. I have tried to be gracious and not judgmental in process because it really isn't about judgment.

 

Calling me a bigot (indirectly) in response is really nice. Thanks for that.

 

What, how did I call you a bigot? I was saying that I didn't understand what you were saying.