The next Prop 8

[ERCougar]

What does everyone think about legalizing/decriminalizing polygamy (when it involves consenting adults)?

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

What does everyone think about legalizing/decriminalizing polygamy (when it involves consenting adults)?

I honestly think this has more to do with the church's opposition to gay marriage than the immorality of gay marriage itself.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I honestly think this has more to do with the church's opposition to gay marriage than the immorality of gay marriage itself.

meaning...? (with regards to polygamy)

[RedHeadGal]

Meaning I don't think the chruch wants to have to deal with the ramifications of opening marriage beyond one woman, one man, because it does not want to revisit the polygamy question. It stopped after being practiced for decades because of the failure to gain legal sanction. I don't think they want the legal sanction back. But I would never, never expect to hear any official articulation of that point.

Are you suggesting polygamy would be a problem for other reasons?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Meaning I don't think the chruch wants to have to deal with the ramifications of opening marriage beyond one woman, one man, because it does not want to revisit the polygamy question. It stopped after being practiced for decades because of the failure to gain legal sanction. I don't think they want the legal sanction back. But I would never, never expect to hear any official articulation of that point.

Are you suggesting polygamy would be a problem for other reasons?

No. Except for cases of abuse or incest, I'm not really sure why it's our business if consenting adults want to marry. The irony is that two adults can have all the sex they want outside of their marriage, but as soon as they claim to be married in a polygamous/polyamorous/whatever relationship, they can be fired from their jobs and charged with a felony. To draw the analogy to gay marriage, I would rather have two (or more) people in some sort of committed relationship than not.

In the end, the only solution that makes sense is to make marriage a distinctly religious/personal commitment and leave the state out of it. If the state wants to somehow subsidize committed relationships, then they can't restrict the designation based on sexual orientation OR religious practice.

[ERCougar]

Apparently no one cares about this. That's odd, because if people are so passionate about discrimination, this seems to be one of the more egregious examples. Why do we tolerate people being fired for religious practices that hurt no one? We don't tolerate firing someone because they're gay. Polygamists aren't even asking for legalization, just decriminalization.

One would also think that we as a historically persecuted religion would be particularly sensitive towards those persecuted for their religious beliefs--especially when we have so much in common with them. Maybe SIEQ/RHG are on to something.

Or maybe it's just not "cool" enough.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Apparently no one cares about this. That's odd, because if people are so passionate about discrimination, this seems to be one of the more egregious examples. Why do we tolerate people being fired for religious practices that hurt no one? We don't tolerate firing someone because they're gay. Polygamists aren't even asking for legalization, just decriminalization.

One would also think that we as a historically persecuted religion would be particularly sensitive towards those persecuted for their religious beliefs--especially when we have so much in common with them. Maybe SIEQ/RHG are on to something.

Or maybe it's just not "cool" enough.

Whoa there, Doc. Have a little patience. I agree with the points you have made.

While I think the church is wrong to fight to ban gay marriage as a result of the court decision, I would probably not be on the front lines pushing for gay marriage. Similarly, I don't see myself out there actively campaigning to legalize polygamy, but I would object if the church joined another political battle if the courts somehow decided that polygamy should be legalized. Does that make sense?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Whoa there, Doc. Have a little patience. I agree with the points you have made.

While I think the church is wrong to fight to ban gay marriage as a result of the court decision, I would probably not be on the front lines pushing for gay marriage. Similarly, I don't see myself out there actively campaigning to legalize polygamy, but I would object if the church joined another political battle if the courts somehow decided that polygamy should be legalized. Does that make sense?

Is your grounds that it is improper for the church to become involved in civic matters? Or you just don't care enough to fight for it, as it doesn't affect you? Or something else?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Is your grounds that it is improper for the church to become involved in civic matters? Or you just don't care enough to fight for it, as it doesn't affect you? Or something else?

All of the above, I suppose. As for gay marriage, we have discussed this ad nauseum, so you probably know where I stand. If gays want the benefits of marriage I don't see many good reasons to object. I certainly don't believe it would cheapen my marriage. I am actually more repulsed by polygamy than gay marriage since I think it is sexist (as typically practiced) and makes women subservient to men. Nevertheless, it seems hypocritical to oppose one and not the other. But I am certainly not going to campaign for a legalization of polygamy.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

All of the above, I suppose. As for gay marriage, we have discussed this ad nauseum, so you probably know where I stand. If gays want the benefits of marriage I don't see many good reasons to object. I certainly don't believe it would cheapen my marriage. I am actually more repulsed by polygamy than gay marriage since I think it is sexist (as typically practiced) and makes women subservient to men. Nevertheless, it seems hypocritical to oppose one and not the other. But I am certainly not going to campaign for a legalization of polygamy.

I would argue that LDS marriage (as typically practiced) makes women subservient to men, but that's a whole other thread...

What brought the subject up for me today was an interview with a polygamist on mormonstories.org that I listened to on the way to work. She struck me as intelligent, educated, articulate, and very modern in her thinking. In fact, I found her much more tolerant and reasoned in most of her views than the average person in my ward. While she admitted that abuses of power did occur (she was very critical of the Warren Jeffs FLDS sect), she believed that polygamy, practiced well, was not sexist at all. In fact, she points out that many are in a situation where the women can alternate child-rearing responsibilities and thus get out of the house to pursue career opportunities.