"Baby daddies" v polygamists... which is worse?

I'm not a Christian.

 

I've no idea what the "fundamentalist Christian/cultist paradigm" is so I doubt I'm referencing it.

 

I have no doubt that you are referencing it.

"Polygamist community" = "fundamentalist Christian/cultist paradigm."

"Fundamentalist Christian/cultist paradigm" =/= "Polygamy."

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough. But we are not talking about the Bible; we are talking about the law.

 

But most of our laws on the subject come straight from the New Testament. By the way Mormons whatever their claims to the contrary are not Christians.

 

Irrelevant. Nor should the Bible inform our laws.

Not being a theologian, I can't speak to that. However, I believe they worship Christ, and belive the Holy Scripture to be to word of God. I hear a duck quacking...

 

If I change my name to Bill Gates do I get to write Checks on his bank account? They worship someone they call Jesus but there take on him is far outside what Christians believe. At the heart of Mormonism is the statement "As man is God once was, as God is man can become." To almost all Christians and most believing Jews - a lot of Jews today are Atheists - such a statement is blasphemous nonsense.

Like it or not most of the laws in this country and most other countries are religiously informed.

 

OK, you've informed me of nothing then. Thanks for the info.

 

Whatever.

 

Like I said, I am not a theologian. I'm sure there are vast differences in ideology and practice between Suni and Shiite Muslims, but they both worship Allah so I think it's fair to call them all Muslims. Mormons worship Christ. They are Christians.

I am aware of that. But as I've stated, that should not be the case--at least in a nation of free men.

 

But should it be ​illegal?

 

Not for consenting adults, in my view, because it's a personal choice that I see no one else having any authority in governing.

I also still say that government should not be in the marriage business at all, but rather that it, if it's going to fuss over how many adults live in a household, should do that without even considering marital status. I would go so far as to say that marriage should be viewed more as a matter of tradition and culture, and of course religion as well, than as a legal matter. People can share their homes and properties, make contracts, etc., without the government and the courts fussing over marital titles. Same with courts recognising joint property, custody rights and so forth.. There could be laws to govern these in cases where people have lived together for whatever length(s) of time we might want to specify, but again without worrying about cultural/traditional/religious formalities such as marriage.

 

I agree - from any perspective outside of Christian faiths, Mormons are a part of the numerous denominations and sects that can be labeled as Christianity. Garyd is just arguing from the standpoint of a certain kind of Christian who has disagreements with the Mormon church's official teachings, views, etc.

I'm sure Sunnis and Shias have their disagreements about what a true Muslim is as well. Just as Catholics and Protestants have long had. To anyone outside of these religious squabbles, they're all pretty much the same I'll call what garyd is doing religionism, akin to racism. Either way, people are drawing arbitrary lines of separation and squabbling over the definitions of various labels accordingly.

 

I agree with everything you state above with one small exception: Child custody should always revolve around the best interest of the child--who can not, by circumstance of being a child--necessarily advocate for himself. In this instance, a dispassionate third party needs to make those decisions thoughfully and objectively. This is where government is useful to a civilized and orderly society.

 

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, actually. I certainly agree that child custody must, as you say, revolve around the best interest of the child.

 

Cheers then!

 

Doesn't really matter either way - the main problem with 'legalizing polygamy' is that it's not practical - unless there was a limit on the number of partners.

Suppose 1,000 people "got married", and adopted a kid - and then 'divorced' - how would a court be able to handle the divorce or child custody for 1,000 people.

But then the "equality for all" crowd could rightly cry 'discrimination', if for example a 10 partner max limit was imposed.

This is why the whole 'marriage equality (TM)' and "equality for all (TM)" is a bunch of bunk - it's not about "equality for all", it's about "equality for gays" - which is fine, but the marketing is dishonest and intended to appeal to emotion versus raw facts - which is why the "equality for all" brand name never fought for the equal rights for incestuous marriages, polygamy etc.

It's not about 'fighting discrimination' - just about fighting particular types of discrimination, while turning a blind eye to others (which is in itself - a form of discrimination). This is why the lame "equality for all" brand name just needs to die a slow death

'Discrimination' is perfectly fine, and happens on a daily basis in everything we do - it's the type and the motive for said discrimination that determines whether or not it's okay.

 

The differences between Sunni and Shia are largely dynastic rather than theological and since there is currently no Caliphate, largely theoretical as well.
Mormons worship someone they call Christ. But for the Mormons Christ is someone who became a god, which is something according to Mormon theology you can also do. According to Christian theology Christ was at the moment of his birth both God and man. To say that Mormon's are Christians is no more accurate than claiming Muslims are Christians.

Further if there is any law at all you aren't entirely free. The very purpose of law be it founded upon human ideas or religious ideals is to limit human behavior in some way or the other. Sexual behavior is none the less behavior.

 

Straw man: The topic is polygamy vs. babydaddyism--not adoption.

 

Then assuming that 2 of the 1000 "married individuals" had a child together - the other 998 would still have custody rights over said child, since they are still part of the 'group marriage'

 

After a little more research, I've come to understand that Mormons are known as nontrinitarian Christians--but Christians nonetheless. In fact, the official name of the Mormon Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Put the word Fundamentalist in front of that one and you've got the "polygamist communities" referenced by Li'l Mike that started this sidebar discussion.

Now maybe we can get back to the actual topic?

The only laws that can exist in a nation of free men are those which prevent one man from infringing on the rights of another to exercise his freedom by acting, speaking, or thinking in a manner of his choosing.

See above.

If it neither picks your pocket or breaks your leg... what concern is it of yours?

 

BS. The only people who have any legal claim to the custody of a child--or any responsibility thereto--are the man and woman who created it.

Now, back to the topic, please.

 

Limited polygamy (i.e. if most people don't do it) is not a bad thing. Widespread polygamy (which in real life means one man, several women) is a negative thing for a society, primarily due to the excess of single males that is caused by it. In Utah, the polygamist towns pretty much kick out many of the teenaged boys (google lost boys of Utah), as they are competition for the polygamist old goats.

 

I've been trying to figure that one out for a while now and the best that I could come up with is that it's just political clique, a phenomenon that isn't unique to liberals. A lot of my liberal friends go out and campaign for gay marriage, but they don't think polygamy should be legal (or incest, btw). They also won't brook any serious criticism of the President (Obama) because that's "unpatriotic", which I find funny because of all they've said about Reagan and Bush II, and the fact that not a damned one of them was even in the national guard.

 

There are however negative legal consequences to being a baby daddy. A character I knew during my time in exile in Alabama was losing about 2/3 of each pay chack for child support payments to kids he'd had out of wedlock. Frankly as far as I'm concerned if you helped make 'em you get to help pay for their raising.

 

I am familiar with the lost boy phenomenon. But this is not a function of polygamy, but rather the cult mechanisms that have developed around it. The topic is whether the practice should be illegal and whether it is better or worse than men who father lots of children with different women and then leave them...