Polygamists Take Their Cases to the Courts

Concerned Women for America ^ | 4/19/2004 | Jeremy Sewall

[scripter]

Group marriage... what a way to confuse children. Keeping marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for kids. I know this steps on many toes, but divorce just sucks for children. Today it's a way of life and is nearly expected, and that grieves my heart.

[scripter]

Quoted on:

Senator Rick Santorum Under Attack From Radical Homosexuals

Thank you.

[Dead Corpse]

The Dead, Children, and Animals cannot give consent... so no. Don't be an idiot. These points have all been gone over here before and done to death. The sides are polarized and there seems to be no resolution in sight.

I'd err on the side of freedom. As long as my neighbors living arrangements are no drain on my pocketbook, why should I care? The only drain there possibly COULD be would be our increasing reliance on socialized government programs and interference in free markets like health care.

you Ms. Grundy types never friggin' learn.

[Delbert]

Dr James Dobson from Focus on the Family has been saying this would happen for a couple of years now. Downward Spiral.

[meenie]

How do shotgun weddings fit into the new, improved version of our marriage laws?

[nomorelurker]

Fine by me as long as the Bride is a nice Browning over/under.

[scripter]

Fine by me as long as the Bride is a nice Browning over/under.

I'm going to inherit two of those someday... The over/under, not the bride...

[uncbob]

Hey consenting adults who can argue with that

Makes more sense than homosexual marriages

[scripter]

Makes more sense than homosexual marriages

I agree as it's more of a variant of traditional marriage than the perversion of same-sex-marriage, yet polygamy or group marriage isn't as healthy for children as traditional marriage.

[sharktrager]

There is a much stronger case for polygamy IMHO. There are several religions that either do, or have, endorse and encourage it. As such, one could easily argue it is at least as reasonable as allowing the use of Peyote in tribal religious ceremonies, which is already a protected practice.

[azhenfud]

"I'd err on the side of freedom."

Freedom? Forcing a handout because you don't otherwise qualify is not freedom. How about giving veterans' benefits to people who've never served? or seniors' benefits to the middle aged? or welfare benefits to the wealthy? Would you not think it "discriminatory and exclusive" to omit the "unqualified"?

As any qualification for a specific benefit must be based upon preset absolutes - marriage must also be defined with absolutes for couples to enjoy those benefits. Those not qualifying must remain unmarried.

Or should we move the standard so those qualify instead of requiring those to meet standards? If we do the former, where do we leave the qualifying line?

Is that freedom's definition? the ability to move the standards of qualification?

[PackerBoy]

Don't get me wrong here, but who on earth would want more than one wife?

[Paulie]

Well, Justice Scalia predicted these things would follow, but was dismissed as a paranoid kook.

[scripter]

Don't get me wrong here, but who on earth would want more than one wife?

While I'm sure many understand your point, there are some who would want more than one wife, or women who want more than one husband. This country is just falling apart under the pretext of freedom. Some guidelines are a good thing.

[onedoug]

Santorum bump.

[Dead Corpse]

Handouts? There shouldn't BE any handouts. Period. The government is not your friggin' Mother.

The definition of "freedom":
Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :

In the case of polygamy, why should anyone else be concerned about my wife and I and our sleeping arrangments? Without the socialized government "benefits" you seem to approve of, there can BE no logical argument made for prohibiting freedom of action between consenting adults. At least, no logical argument without resorting to religion.

Now who's religious standard do you want to follow? Isn't that between you are your God/s? The Norse/Celtic tribes used to have the standard that a man could have as many women as he could protect and feed. Judeo/Christian tennets seem to vary between sects. Certain Arabic religions allow for harems.

As I said... err on the side of freedom. If the socialized benefits being paid out to those you don't approve of chafes... then let's do the smart thing and get government out of that business shall we?

[NathanR]

"The monogamy movement in recent history is a cousin to communism."

Right. Tell that to Henry VIII. Monogamy and it's cousin serial monogamy has been the norm in Western (and Christian) societies for thousands of years.

[Gator113]

Well Pal, I don't know who Ms Grundy is and you best refrain from calling me an idiot.

Now, you say that you would error on the side of freedom..........is that with all things or just sexual perversion that provides the odor and contact with human feces. Oh never mind dear smart one.... the answer is obvious!

[LiteKeeper]

FWIW - this is what we all predicted!

[Lizavetta]

Once the door has been opened for one kind of 'other' it cannot legally be closed to any other kind of 'other'. There would be no grounds for it.