Yes, polygamy is the next step

[PetrChelcicky]

Bootstrap said:
"I don't know why the article in the OP connects this to polygamy. I don't think any state recognizes polygamous marriages. The Supreme Court has not said they should be recognized as marriages."

Polygamy is accepted in a lot of parts of the world. Actually many Muslims coming to Europe are polygamists.
I agree with you that federal or international law cannot allow some states to reverse a marriage established in another state. Which means that the broadest definiton of marriage wins.
(We have had a similar problem with age of marriage. Tzigans tend to fuddle with their birth date in order to get married before legal age. Turks in Greece are officially allowed to marry much earlier than the Greeks themselves. This once led to a public storm when a Turk young man immigrated with his "child bride" (I believe she was twelve years old). The storm was big enough that the bureaucrats separated the girl and shuffled it into a kind of orphan home. I don't think that that is a good solution (the girl might be proud to be a married woman and resent being treated like a child, but the girl was never interviewed).)

Muslims in all countries are lobbying for the acknowledgement of polygamy. Utah has just put down its strictest laws against polygamy - allowing the old-fashioned Mormon polygamists going public. Were there any Anabaptist groups who tried to reestablish old Hebrew polygamy (except of the Munsterites)? Could any Anabaptist take a stand against polygamy, given that is was definitely allowed in Deuteronomy? I doubt it.

The next step after polygamy is polyandry (not so frequent), then marrying with animals or plants (well-known in India) and at last marriage with technical objects ("object sexuality" exists and is scientifically approved).

I think that the 14th amendment has been absurdly overstretched for the sake of lobbying groups. Roe vs. Wade was the best known example. But a concise definition of the 14th amendment ist still not found.

[temporal1]

PetrC:
.. I agree with you that federal or international law cannot allow some states to reverse a marriage established in another state.
Which means that the broadest definiton of marriage wins. ..

i’m not sure about this.
It seems (to me) the world does lots of recognizing existing marriages - without necessarily legalizing them ..

In the U.S., state laws often vary, sometimes against Federal law! (legalization of marijuana is contemporary example.)
Possibly, the U.S. is headed to more state autonomy, not less? RvW may be an indication.

i’m generally interested in how Poland and Hungary are doing things, i understand both to be pro traditional Christian marriage, they both have Muslim populations and mosques, AND, are surrounded by countries with varying traditions. Differences, even clashes happen. But i don’t believe this results in “the broadest definition wins.” (The word, “state” can mean a state within a country, or a separate country.)

i’m seeing polygamy being pressed more+more, the U.S. has its Mormon history, which included violence in its day,
now it’s pressed by (those who press everything)-mostly for political power, gov benefits of all descriptions, access to the Public Treasury - and, Muslims, presumably for all of the above, and faith reasons.

Child marriages are a significant point of contention, esp regarding Muslims, who will claim freedom of religion in U.S. law.
But, child protection lines are being blurred - as quickly and thoroughly as (those who press everything) can manage.

We witness how generally unwanted policies can “run like wildfire” throughout the culture - this is no small matter.

(Those who press everything) LOVE LOVE LOVE statements like, “the broadest definition wins.”
(i urge) thinking people to respond with, “not so fast, compadre.”

[Falco Underhill]

Once it was accepted that 'sexual orientation' (a misnomer) was to be given protected minority status in law alongside ethnicity the game was rigged to accept every sexual perversion.

Sexual perversions, in reality, have no natural rights.

[Ken]

Polygamy is already perfectly legal.

You or I can shack up with as many women as we want to. No law against it.

What is illegal is to have simultaneous legal marriages to more than one spouse at a time. And there are very good administrative legal reasons to prohibit that which have nothing to do with morality and relate to other issues like inheritance, alimony, divorce, child custody, child support, division of assets, etc.

[steve-in-kville]

Polygamy is already perfectly legal.

You or I can shack up with as many women as we want to. No law against it.

What is illegal is to have simultaneous legal marriages to more than one spouse at a time. And there are very good administrative legal reasons to prohibit that which have nothing to do with morality and relate to other issues like inheritance, alimony, divorce, child custody, child support, division of assets, etc.

This is what I was getting at in the other thread.

If you want to see a documentary on the Mormon church, Under the Banner of Heaven is a good watch. Might be a little heavy for the young one's, though.

[steve-in-kville]

You or I can shack up with as many women as we want to. No law against it.

Between my own wife, my own daughters, a widowed MIL and SIL that hasn't married (yet)... I have enough estrogen in my life

[Ken]

Polygamy is already perfectly legal.

You or I can shack up with as many women as we want to. No law against it.

What is illegal is to have simultaneous legal marriages to more than one spouse at a time. And there are very good administrative legal reasons to prohibit that which have nothing to do with morality and relate to other issues like inheritance, alimony, divorce, child custody, child support, division of assets, etc.

This is what I was getting at in the other thread.

If you want to see a documentary on the Mormon church, Under the Banner of Heaven is a good watch. Might be a little heavy for the young one's, though.

I watched it and found it fascinating. Not so much the actual story which was sort of hard to follow (which brother was doing which crimes and who they were doing them with). But for the window on the Mormon church.

Everything was "heavenly father" this or "heavenly father" that. Never God or Jesus. Is that really how Mormons talk? I found it rather off-putting in a way that I couldn't quite describe. There are enough similarities to traditional protestant or mainstream Menno life to have some familiarity, but the differences are obvious enough to make it seem strange. And then the powerful pressures to push your kids into confirmation in the church at a young age, or whatever they called it. I guess confirmation is the Catholic term. The families social status in the community hinged on their getting their kids confirmed as full members at the correct age or they would be ostracized and lose status and position in both the church and wider society including career.

And then the series had sort of a side tangent into 19th century Mormon history and the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the attempts by the institutional church to keep it covered up. Which I guess is more or less a futile effort since the history is so well documented and written about from non-Mormon sources. Although that was the 1970s so maybe not so much back then.

[HondurasKeiser]

Polygamy is already perfectly legal.

You or I can shack up with as many women as we want to. No law against it.

What is illegal is to have simultaneous legal marriages to more than one spouse at a time. And there are very good administrative legal reasons to prohibit that which have nothing to do with morality and relate to other issues like inheritance, alimony, divorce, child custody, child support, division of assets, etc.

This is what I was getting at in the other thread.

If you want to see a documentary on the Mormon church, Under the Banner of Heaven is a good watch. Might be a little heavy for the young one's, though.

I watched it and found it fascinating. Not so much the actual story which was sort of hard to follow (which brother was doing which crimes and who they were doing them with). But for the window on the Mormon church.

Everything was "heavenly father" this or "heavenly father" that. Never God or Jesus. Is that really how Mormons talk? I found it rather off-putting in a way that I couldn't quite describe. There are enough similarities to traditional protestant or mainstream Menno life to have some familiarity, but the differences are obvious enough to make it seem strange. And then the powerful pressures to push your kids into confirmation in the church at a young age, or whatever they called it. I guess confirmation is the Catholic term. The families social status in the community hinged on their getting their kids confirmed as full members at the correct age or they would be ostracized and lose status and position in both the church and wider society including career.

And then the series had sort of a side tangent into 19th century Mormon history and the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the attempts by the institutional church to keep it covered up. Which I guess is more or less a futile effort since the history is so well documented and written about from non-Mormon sources. Although that was the 1970s so maybe not so much back then.

I have regular contact with several Mormons that are in my orbit and my wife and I both agree that there is something off-putting about the way they interact with us. It's hard to put my finger on it but it leaves one feeling confused and baffled.

[Josh]

Believe it or not, Mormons are an un-orthodox religion that deviates quite far from most Christian doctrines as we have understood them for the last two millennia.

[temporal1]

Polygamy is already perfectly legal.

You or I can shack up with as many women as we want to. No law against it.

What is illegal is to have simultaneous legal marriages to more than one spouse at a time.
And there are very good administrative legal reasons to prohibit that which have nothing to do with morality and relate to other issues like inheritance, alimony, divorce, child custody, child support, division of assets, etc.

This is what I was getting at in the other thread. .. ..

Using this math, there was no reason for Obergefell v. Hodges, and, those who were honest admitted it.

Shacking up is fornication, like sodomy, a grave sin, but typically no longer illegal in human law. This does not mean it’s not damaging. This present debate is about further hijacking human law; of course, God is not fooled. In my lifetime, “living together” without marriage was introduced from some European countries, 60’s-70’s. (i haven’t looked into any deeper history than that.)

Polygamy as “the next step” - i understand to be about acquiring formal legal recognition - for access to, appropriation of, gov benefits (originally designed to both protect and encourage valuable traditional marriage).

In my view, i’d sooner end encouragements to traditional marriage rather than compromise them by extending them to “all takers.”
It’s about money, greed, taking what belongs to others. Covetousness.

Top corporations lobby Senate Republicans to codify same-sex ‘marriage,’ open door to polygamy
For the sake of discussion, define, in your own words, what you think polygamy is.

I'd go with the dictionary...

Polygamy - the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=polygam ... d:overview

for·ni·ca·tion / /ˌfôrnəˈkāSH(ə)n/
sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.