the recent polygamy trials in Utah, it really was a matter of
exploitation.
Now if it were a situation where those concerned freely and fully
understanding the implications, entered a legal agreement regarding
property children etc., then what's the problem. It would essentially
be the same as an extended family, just a bit more sleeping around.
Before his death Robert A. Heinlein explored this sort of a
relationship. It would not be my preference, but as long as the kids
are protected,etc., would there be any harm? One way of looking at it
would be something similar to a tribal grouping.
larry
>On this point, if two people want to have a committed, loving
>relationship, why can't three? Why not ten? Where does the number
>two come from? Tradition? Society? You're insinuating that
>polygamy is wrong.
>
>It sounds like now we're pushing past your comfortable area. I
>happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman. You (I'm
>inferring from the message) think it's between any two
>people. Somebody else might recognize it between six people. Where
>does it end?
>
>- Matt Small
>
>----- Original Message -----
> From: BethF
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
> Where does the logic that same-sex marriage logically leads to polygamy?
>
> Homosexual people also have families. They have children, and
>partners, just like you do. How does it being recognized as a legal
>contract hurt traditional marriage?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Small
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:35 AM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
> I don't think I agree with you - the basic precept of marriage
>is to create a family structure, and swinging violates that precept
>since it introduces an outsider into the structure. The family
>structure is central to ours and most societies, which is why there
>is a push for same sex marriages by homosexual couples. Why get
>married if you want to include others? Only for the licensing, as
>Jim Campbell tells me. I guess the next logical step for the court
>to take is to allow marriages of three or more people - and it will
>happen.
>
> - Matt Small
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Heald, Tim
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> Realistically adultery is a religious construct. You look at
>the various
> polyamory movements and swingers and so forth and see groups that don't
> believe in monogamy, and they are perfectly happy with their
>choice. Now
> obviously you need to look at it kind of like contract law too
>I guess. If
> you agree to monogamy during your vows you should be somehow bound, but
> altering the vows to allow extra marital relations should certainly be
> allowed. The military has some very out dated laws regarding sexuality
> still. Sodomy of any kind, even when consent is given, is prohibited.
> That's just silly in this day and age.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> I was just thinking the same thing...
>
> Obviously, adultery has no consistent meaning in a legal sense and all
> definitions of it should be thrown out until something that works can be
> discovered. This should apply to religious institutions as well.
>
> Should mean Erika is released from any monogomous obligations she
> previously felt bound by, Gel.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> So let me get this right...
>
> In Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are ok
>
> But in New Hampshire, if you are married and have an affair with someone
> of
> the same sex, it is not adultery.
>
> _____
>
>
>[
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
