LDS attitudes on gay rights changes dramatically

[Tex]

Originally Posted by wuapinmon

Yes, I am willing to accept the broader implications of my interpretation of that clause, even if some of them make me wince (or more visceral reactions).

Interesting. You may be the first person I've met who does. Mostly people in your position try to explain why homosexuality is so different from all those others.

Homosexuality may eventually obtain majority support in the marriage debate; it's hard to say for sure. But I'm pretty confident you are in the extreme minority on those others, and will be for some time to come.

[MikeWaters]

At the very least, non-state-recognized polygamy should not be illegal. At least not the kind between consenting adults.

Hugh Hefner can sleep with as many women as he wants, and the world applauds. Two girlfriends at a time, one in each arm. Yet if he claimed that they were husband and wives through private religious ceremony, he would be breaking the law. That makes no sense.

I don't think that the state is required to recognize polygamous marriages, and to give them the basket of rights that is included. But if marriage laws are in place to economically protect women and children, it might make sense to allow that option.

[wuapinmon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Interesting. You may be the first person I've met who does. Mostly people in your position try to explain why homosexuality is so different from all those others.

Homosexuality may eventually obtain majority support in the marriage debate; it's hard to say for sure. But I'm pretty confident you are in the extreme minority on those others, and will be for some time to come.

I'm sure that I'm in the minority on the others. As long as the 'consenting adult' idea is maintained, I see no legal basis, as it relates to the EPC of the 14th, to prohibit polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and so on. I'm not sure about human/animal marriage since there's no way to gauge the consent of an animal (I'm not talking about intercourse).

And, the Hugh Hefner example is one that I agree with. Don't try and marry them both, then we get people thumping Bibles and calling down Heaven on polygamists.

I'm a political moderate really, leaning left. I just don't think it's right to impose my morals and religious beliefs on those who don't share them.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by wuapinmon

I'm sure that I'm in the minority on the others. As long as the 'consenting adult' idea is maintained, I see no legal basis, as it relates to the EPC of the 14th, to prohibit polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and so on. I'm not sure about human/animal marriage since there's no way to gauge the consent of an animal (I'm not talking about intercourse).

And, the Hugh Hefner example is one that I agree with. Don't try and marry them both, then we get people thumping Bibles and calling down Heaven on polygamists.

I'm a political moderate really, leaning left. I just don't think it's right to impose my morals and religious beliefs on those who don't share them.

I'm not sure how uncommon this view is, when you're talking about people who favor gay marriage. It holds together nicely because of this "consenting adults" idea. This concept doesn't translate, however, for other state-regulated marriage issues such as age of consent and consanguinity.

When you're talking to Mormons I think you get a more visceral reaction. I admit I feel that. I'm not happy with the history of polygamy and I worry about what that would mean for my church in the future. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I didn't grow up hating polygamy.

[wuapinmon]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I'm not sure how I'd feel if I didn't grow up hating polygamy.

I'm a convert, so I grew up not knowing much about it. I had to come to terms with it in my late 20's at BYU. I also realized that some of my Mormon ancestors were polygamists (we're a lost branch of the family), and that I'm descended from those relationships.