Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,178

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Full Story

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26547 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
For the 358th time - some people support polygamy, some people don't. Some people will advocate for polygamy, some people won't. Some people will say allowing SSM opens the door for polygamous marriages, some people won't. Some people say that allowing HETEROSEXUAL marriage means polygamous marriages should be allowed while SSM shouldn't be allowed.
Some people say SSM is not marriage, some say it is. Some people voted for SSM, some voted against it. Some judges said SSM is a right, other Judges said no it isn't.

Soooooo....all that means....what?
Polygamous marriage is a completely different fight than gay marriage. It will move forward (or not) on its own merits, nothing else.
Oh madone! Its all part of the same fight, of how, we as a society define marriage, not how individuals define it. If monogamous marriage of one man and one woman orientated toward the procreative aspect of the male female union is no longer the standard, then there's no reason to consider other forms of marriage. Not that hard to see the link. Legal SSM has raised the question, "if SSm is legal, why not polygamy?". It that "just change it for us, but not them", mantra that SSMers use when polygamy is mentioned in the same discussion of redifining marriage. Why is SSM such a sacred secular cow, that nothing else can be compared to it?
I would ask you to ponder all of this and get back to us tomorrow with your thoughts, but let's be honest - tomorrow you'll just be reposting the same lame, debunked polygamy arguments you've been posting for weeks because you have no real arguments against gay marriage.
Carry on Johnny One Note...
As you have no real arguments for it, nor real arguments against redefining marriage to include plural marriage structures. "Oh we're (SSMers) not like those people (polygamists), we're just like everybody else, we want to keep the number two because everybody knows marriage is about two people regardless of gender"....oh shoooooor...that just ignores thousands of years of human societal evolution.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26548 Jan 28, 2013
Then get off topix and WORK for it. That's what we've done--and are doing--to achieve SSM.

So far, you haven't shown me anything concerning a social/political activism trying to overcome prejudices towards polygamists. Nobody is out there as an official represntative group. No one is getting involved in local or federal governments to lobby for polygamy.

I never said anything about deserving anything; that's your problem. Like it or not, "deserve" really isn't a factor to lawmakers; if it were, women would be guaranteed equal pay and they STILL aren't. You're new to this game; I'm not.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think the only place I ever heard that is from you typing it DICKWEED? I heard that argument. Many times and NOT JUST FROM YOU STUPID.
Many people say "for the umpteenth time I don't give a damn about same sex marriage" too. Not me. I think it should be allowed. Polygamy too.
So you've researched polygamy rights thoroughly and you can say that no one is working to advocate legalizing polygamy. Bullsh!t. And even if they weren't does that mean they don't deserve equal rights?
Bottom line, you're selfish. And maybe a closet hypocrite. And probably stupid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26549 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You think their viewers are all supporters? They're a freak show, like honey boo boo or the kardashians.
You can't fool us...we know you have the first few seasons of "Sister Wives" on DVD.
As noted, a lot of polygamists are mormons or muslims...two groups that do NOT support SSM.
Correct....however there are LGBT (Shouldn't that be in alphabetical order...BGLT?) SSM advocates who are seeking to define marriage beyond both OSM, and SSM, to include all sorts of combinations.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26550 Jan 28, 2013
Another lazy a-hole who expects things to be handed to them.

BTW--it's the major religions that have fought SSM for over a decade. You think they will accept polygamy?
since the mainstream mormons renounced it, they can't help you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Would ya please Just Think.....Oh Madone!
Are ya that stubborn? It's quite simple. SSM and Polygamy both represent significant changes from the commonly understood, legal, cultural, historic, and/or religious, concept of MARRIAGE as THE UNION of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. That's it! If it no longer means that, why can't it mean two men, two women, one man several women, one woman several men, etc. Where do we draw the line?
What makes SSM such a secular sacred cow that marriage has to be redefined for it, and nothing else? Why are SSM rights more important that poly rights? So much for the notion of "equality". "Some are more equal than others".
How the heck did American society survive into the 21st century on the quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife, orientated around their sexual union, and the products of that union, children? Crazy I tell ya....our civilization should've died out decades ago.
If two men/women don't marry will the sky fall? Will legions of unwed gay pregnant men live in shame? Will gay women wonder what to do with all the sperm they produce?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26551 Jan 28, 2013
You could put it that way, but it just shows you to be a fu**ing moron.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or to put it another way.....
"Gays aren't going for traditional marriage, we're going for....gender segregated marriage....non conjugal marriage .....gay marriage.....lesbian marriage....no girls allowed marriage...no boys allowed marriage.....two of a kind marriage....."

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26552 Jan 28, 2013
Bigamy is illegal, you blustering baboon.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I agree. If two people of opposite gender can marry why can't three?
Please tell us hotshot. Why not?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26553 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Then get off topix and WORK for it. That's what we've done--and are doing--to achieve SSM.
So far, you haven't shown me anything concerning a social/political activism trying to overcome prejudices towards polygamists. Nobody is out there as an official represntative group. No one is getting involved in local or federal governments to lobby for polygamy.
I never said anything about deserving anything; that's your problem. Like it or not, "deserve" really isn't a factor to lawmakers; if it were, women would be guaranteed equal pay and they STILL aren't. You're new to this game; I'm not.
<quoted text>
Yeah yeah, try and relax Fruitloops.

Why do you believe polygamy doesn't deserve the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26554 Jan 28, 2013
Really? name them. The only other fight for our communioty has been allowing TG's to marry the opposite sex in all states, but that's a gender-identity issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't fool us...we know you have the first few seasons of "Sister Wives" on DVD.
<quoted text>
Correct....however there are LGBT (Shouldn't that be in alphabetical order...BGLT?) SSM advocates who are seeking to define marriage beyond both OSM, and SSM, to include all sorts of combinations.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26555 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You could put it that way, but it just shows you to be a fu**ing moron.
<quoted text>
Is that your real picture?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26556 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Bigamy is illegal, you blustering baboon.
<quoted text>
But why is it illegal Fruitloops?

Same sex marriage is effectively illegal in most states. You won't go to jail for it like you would for polygamy but you cannot do it.

Polygamy is not bigamy. Bigamy is the unlawful act of knowingly having two or more wives or husbands at the same time, with the second not knowing about the first.

Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives and/or husbands, with all parties aware of, and agreeable to the arrangement.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26557 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Then get off topix and WORK for it. That's what we've done--and are doing--to achieve SSM.
We all know the legal activism for SSM serves to create greater acceptance of, and expand the legal arguments for, polygamy. All the "wah...wah...but we're doing all the work...it's not fair" matters not in a court of law and court of public opinion. It's the rainbow crowd demand for legal SSM that has knocked a hole in the door of the legal definition of marriage as a conjugal union of one husband and one wife. So you're going to get mad because polygamists will start trying to enlarge the hole? I would think "more the merrier" would be a common BGLT sentiment.
So far, you haven't shown me anything concerning a social/political activism trying to overcome prejudices towards polygamists. Nobody is out there as an official represntative group. No one is getting involved in local or federal governments to lobby for polygamy.
In a way you're already doing that. Every legal victory, every interview, every prominent elected official, every letter to the editor, and every "marriage equality" bumper sticker, for legal SSM, can only lead to a great acceptance for, and acknowledgement of, plural marriage. Plus it helps that Kody and the Missuses continue to express their support in various interviews for SSM. Why would you think otherwise? Seriously...you seem to be a smart fella.
I never said anything about deserving anything; that's your problem. Like it or not, "deserve" really isn't a factor to lawmakers; if it were, women would be guaranteed equal pay and they STILL aren't. You're new to this game; I'm not.
Don't get mad when someone else uses your rules to play the game as well.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26558 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Really? name them.


Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships

The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage,“family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources.

Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:

Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.

Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26559 Jan 28, 2013
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/...

January 5, 2013
From Same-Sex Marriage to Polygamy and Polyandry
By James M. Arlandson

Part 1

I keep hearing same-sex marriage (SSM) activists assuring us that no one else will legally redefine the essence of marriage, after they enjoy the privilege of doing so. It's a red herring to distract us from the real issue: redefining it for them alone.

But if we redefine marriage for one group, there's no logical reason to deny other nonconformist advocates their right to do so, especially if they successfully argue their version of marriage on utilitarian grounds -- it benefits or does no harm to society.

Here are two more nonconformist groups clamoring for their share of the marriage mud pie.

First, polygamy.

Islam allows polygamy for men. They can marry up to four women if the men can afford them (Quran 4:3). Of course religious scholars can't deny the clear teaching of the Quran. Allah wills it. So they inform us of the social benefits of polygamy.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) is made up of devout religious scholars, most of whom have their doctorates in Islamic law or other Islamic subjects. They are qualified to write fatwas (religious rulings or opinions). The site uses the Question and Answer format.

A reader asks for ten reasons why Islam allows polygamy. Then Dr. Main al-Qudah,an assistant professor of Islamic studies in the American Open University and an Imam of MAS Katy Center in Houston, Texas, replies with four reasons in fatwa no. 2134:

Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:

1. The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband.

2. Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.

3. Worldwide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males; eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy.

4. One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.

Next, a questioner, writing in polished English and adhering to the standard Islamic defense of polygamy, asks AMJA about passing laws allowing polygamy in the USA. The enquirer lays out its social benefits:

...There are many women who could benefit from plural marriage here in the US. In particular, women who are widowed, divorced, and older single women, many are with little or no nearby families (especially immigrants, refugees, and reverts to Islam), many are forced to work long hours to make ends meet, and so forth. They are not finding suitable husbands easily, though like any other woman they could benefit from the protection, security, dignity, and comfort of marriage. The Muslim men here are among the most affluent and educated in the world, but they are marrying only one woman while single Muslim women are left to struggle alone or become dependent on the masjid [Mosque] and the government welfare system. Since polygamy is still illegal in the US, is it advised for the Muslim community to try to make it legal so that the benefits of polygamy can be attained? The Mormon religious community is attempting to make polygamy legal; is it okay for Muslims to join them in this cause? It is not fair that in the US one man can literally sleep with hundreds of women with no penalty or responsibility, but multiple women cannot get the benefits of marriage from one responsible man. What can we do under these circumstances?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26560 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We all know the legal activism for SSM serves to create greater acceptance of, and expand the legal arguments for, polygamy. All the "wah...wah...but we're doing all the work...it's not fair" matters not in a court of law and court of public opinion. It's the rainbow crowd demand for legal SSM that has knocked a hole in the door of the legal definition of marriage as a conjugal union of one husband and one wife. So you're going to get mad because polygamists will start trying to enlarge the hole? I would think "more the merrier" would be a common BGLT sentiment.
<quoted text>
In a way you're already doing that. Every legal victory, every interview, every prominent elected official, every letter to the editor, and every "marriage equality" bumper sticker, for legal SSM, can only lead to a great acceptance for, and acknowledgement of, plural marriage. Plus it helps that Kody and the Missuses continue to express their support in various interviews for SSM. Why would you think otherwise? Seriously...you seem to be a smart fella.
<quoted text>
Don't get mad when someone else uses your rules to play the game as well.
It seems Cpeter's own tactics, when used to support groups he doesn't approve of, make him mad.

Funny that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26561 Jan 28, 2013
Part 2
So what is the answer? Dr. Hatem al-Hajis the Dean of Sharia Academy of America, is Board Certified in Pediatrics by the American Board of Pediatrics, and is Associate Professor of Fiqh at Sharia Academy of America and Islamic University of Minnesota. Since the questioner was so thorough, Dr. al-Haj replies in a short fatwa (no. 2550):
Allah said: "Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtle, the Aware."
You are absolutely right, and the Muslim community should join hands with any religious community towards this noble end to relieve the suffering of many women. Will this happen any time soon? Allah knows best, but we must do our part.
For more fatwas about polygamy at AMJA, see nos. 3370, 22550, 79208, and 1366.
Remember, those fatwas are in an American context, not a distant sultanate. Muddy business, that.
We now peer, not leer, into polyamory or open, nonmongamous relationships, including open marriages.
Traditionally, monogamy has been defined as relational and sexual exclusivity between one man and one woman. But some nonconformists say that while they have their primary partnership, they allow hook ups with others. "It's a redefinition of marriage," says one.
A mature student in my class told us of her friend who is in a polyamorous relationship. Her husband gives her "free rein," so to speak.
Derek McCullough and David S. Hall, Ph.D., say monogamy is a cultural myth and polyamory is an option:
...Much of the evidence seems to indicate that human attainment of the cultural ideal of monogamy is a myth. The moral argument for monogamy is a weak position. A better moral argument can be made regarding what is best for each individual and for society, that is, do we make life better for each and all by insisting on sex only in monogamous marriage of heterosexual couples, or on letting individuals find responsible ways of relating that, in Pagan terms, "harm none". Liberal religion has taken a fine stance supporting homosexual and heterosexual couples, and unmarried couples as well. What is so hard about seeing the parallels to the "more than a couple" part?
In the old days, polyamory used to be called adultery or fornication. But the "moral argument for monogamy is a weak position." Apparently, in a diverse and tolerant society any point of view and feeling becomes the new norm. McCullough and Hall use the long history of polygamy to shore up the naturalness of polyamory. It's evolutionary biology, you see. Liberal religion can endorse it. In their whole piece they project such a cool, open-minded vibe and write in such soothing psychological terms,old-school vices become new-school virtues.
Things are a little confusing for me, however. Polyamorists may not get married, but if they were to do so, apparently they would become polygamists of sorts. Yet it would not be limited to one heterosexual husband and four heterosexual wives as we see in Islam's old-school polygamy. Instead, we're entering a brave new world, so any combination of men and women and sexual orientation would do (e.g. four "husbands"). Despite the confusion right now, we would get used to their marriage, just as we're getting used to SSM. "Progress" is inevitable.
One gay activist who works hard at redefining marriage says the ultimate goal is to change society. "In the end we will have so remade society, it will have to adjust to us, because it will seem absurd not to." Others say marriage has no essence, so we can "fiddle" with it as society evolves. Scholars rewrite the definitions in the trade dictionaries and encyclopedias to go with the muddy flow and establish new norms. Now the public has to catch up.
Further, to borrow a question from SSM advocates, how would polygamy or polyamory harm your individual traditional marriage?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26562 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/...
January 5, 2013
From Same-Sex Marriage to Polygamy and Polyandry
By James M. Arlandson
Part 1
I keep hearing same-sex marriage (SSM) activists assuring us that no one else will legally redefine the essence of marriage, after they enjoy the privilege of doing so. It's a red herring to distract us from the real issue: redefining it for them alone.
But if we redefine marriage for one group, there's no logical reason to deny other nonconformist advocates their right to do so, especially if they successfully argue their version of marriage on utilitarian grounds -- it benefits or does no harm to society.
Here are two more nonconformist groups clamoring for their share of the marriage mud pie.
First, polygamy.
Islam allows polygamy for men. They can marry up to four women if the men can afford them (Quran 4:3). Of course religious scholars can't deny the clear teaching of the Quran. Allah wills it. So they inform us of the social benefits of polygamy.
The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) is made up of devout religious scholars, most of whom have their doctorates in Islamic law or other Islamic subjects. They are qualified to write fatwas (religious rulings or opinions). The site uses the Question and Answer format.
A reader asks for ten reasons why Islam allows polygamy. Then Dr. Main al-Qudah,an assistant professor of Islamic studies in the American Open University and an Imam of MAS Katy Center in Houston, Texas, replies with four reasons in fatwa no. 2134:
Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:
1. The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband.
2. Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.
3. Worldwide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males; eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy.
4. One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.
Next, a questioner, writing in polished English and adhering to the standard Islamic defense of polygamy, asks AMJA about passing laws allowing polygamy in the USA. The enquirer lays out its social benefits:
...There are many women who could benefit from plural marriage here in the US. In particular, women who are widowed, divorced, and older single women, many are with little or no nearby families (especially immigrants, refugees, and reverts to Islam), many are forced to work long hours to make ends meet, and so forth. They are not finding suitable husbands easily, though like any other woman they could benefit from the protection, security, dignity, and comfort of marriage. The Muslim men here are among the most affluent and educated in the world, but they are marrying only one woman while single Muslim women are left to struggle alone or become dependent on the masjid [Mosque] and the government welfare system. Since polygamy is still illegal in the US, is it advised for the Muslim community to try to make it legal so that the benefits of polygamy can be attained? The Mormon religious community is attempting to make polygamy legal; is it okay for Muslims to join them in this cause? It is not fair that in the US one man can literally sleep with hundreds of women with no penalty or responsibility, but multiple women cannot get the benefits of marriage from one responsible man. What can we do under these circumstances?
Outsanding posts this morning Pietro! What more could I add? Maybe I'll take the day off!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26563 Jan 28, 2013
No, bigamy is holding more than one concurrent marriage contract with the state. Whether the parties know about it or not, it's still a crime. Don't make up stupid definitions.

There is a huge difference between "illegal" aand "not recognized." SSM is not recognized; polygamy and bigamy are illegal.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But why is it illegal Fruitloops?
Same sex marriage is effectively illegal in most states. You won't go to jail for it like you would for polygamy but you cannot do it.
Polygamy is not bigamy. Bigamy is the unlawful act of knowingly having two or more wives or husbands at the same time, with the second not knowing about the first.
Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives and/or husbands, with all parties aware of, and agreeable to the arrangement.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26564 Jan 28, 2013
Keep thinking like that and polygamy will remain illegal. The issues, whether you like it or not, are different.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We all know the legal activism for SSM serves to create greater acceptance of, and expand the legal arguments for, polygamy. All the "wah...wah...but we're doing all the work...it's not fair" matters not in a court of law and court of public opinion. It's the rainbow crowd demand for legal SSM that has knocked a hole in the door of the legal definition of marriage as a conjugal union of one husband and one wife. So you're going to get mad because polygamists will start trying to enlarge the hole? I would think "more the merrier" would be a common BGLT sentiment.
<quoted text>
In a way you're already doing that. Every legal victory, every interview, every prominent elected official, every letter to the editor, and every "marriage equality" bumper sticker, for legal SSM, can only lead to a great acceptance for, and acknowledgement of, plural marriage. Plus it helps that Kody and the Missuses continue to express their support in various interviews for SSM. Why would you think otherwise? Seriously...you seem to be a smart fella.
<quoted text>
Don't get mad when someone else uses your rules to play the game as well.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26565 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 2
So what is the answer? Dr. Hatem al-Hajis the Dean of Sharia Academy of America, is Board Certified in Pediatrics by the American Board of Pediatrics, and is Associate Professor of Fiqh at Sharia Academy of America and Islamic University of Minnesota. Since the questioner was so thorough, Dr. al-Haj replies in a short fatwa (no. 2550):
Allah said: "Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtle, the Aware."
You are absolutely right, and the Muslim community should join hands with any religious community towards this noble end to relieve the suffering of many women. Will this happen any time soon? Allah knows best, but we must do our part.
For more fatwas about polygamy at AMJA, see nos. 3370, 22550, 79208, and 1366.
Remember, those fatwas are in an American context, not a distant sultanate. Muddy business, that.
We now peer, not leer, into polyamory or open, nonmongamous relationships, including open marriages.
Traditionally, monogamy has been defined as relational and sexual exclusivity between one man and one woman. But some nonconformists say that while they have their primary partnership, they allow hook ups with others. "It's a redefinition of marriage," says one.
A mature student in my class told us of her friend who is in a polyamorous relationship. Her husband gives her "free rein," so to speak.
Derek McCullough and David S. Hall, Ph.D., say monogamy is a cultural myth and polyamory is an option:
...Much of the evidence seems to indicate that human attainment of the cultural ideal of monogamy is a myth. The moral argument for monogamy is a weak position. A better moral argument can be made regarding what is best for each individual and for society, that is, do we make life better for each and all by insisting on sex only in monogamous marriage of heterosexual couples, or on letting individuals find responsible ways of relating that, in Pagan terms, "harm none". Liberal religion has taken a fine stance supporting homosexual and heterosexual couples, and unmarried couples as well. What is so hard about seeing the parallels to the "more than a couple" part?
In the old days, polyamory used to be called adultery or fornication. But the "moral argument for monogamy is a weak position." Apparently, in a diverse and tolerant society any point of view and feeling becomes the new norm. McCullough and Hall use the long history of polygamy to shore up the naturalness of polyamory. It's evolutionary biology, you see. Liberal religion can endorse it. In their whole piece they project such a cool, open-minded vibe and write in such soothing psychological terms,old-school vices become new-school virtues.
Things are a little confusing for me, however. Polyamorists may not get married, but if they were to do so, apparently they would become polygamists of sorts. Yet it would not be limited to one heterosexual husband and four heterosexual wives as we see in Islam's old-school polygamy. Instead, we're entering a brave new world, so any combination of men and women and sexual orientation would do (e.g. four "husbands"). Despite the confusion right now, we would get used to their marriage, just as we're getting used to SSM. "Progress" is inevitable.
One gay activist who works hard at redefining marriage says the ultimate goal is to change society. "In the end we will have so remade society, it will have to adjust to us, because it will seem absurd not to." Others say marriage has no essence, so we can "fiddle" with it as society evolves. Scholars rewrite the definitions in the trade dictionaries and encyclopedias to go with the muddy flow and establish new norms. Now the public has to catch up.
Further, to borrow a question from SSM advocates, how would polygamy or polyamory harm your individual traditional marriage?
You are quoting someone from the Sharia Academy?

Really?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26566 Jan 28, 2013
That's not advocating; that's typing. It's also clearly by someone who doen't know how activism works; you AWAYS focus on a single issue. MLK didn't speak about native americans' rights for a reason, just like gandhi didn't fight for women's suffrage. The more diffuse the message, the easier it is to conflate and ignore them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships
The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage,“family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources.
Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:
Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.
Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.
Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.
Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:
· Single parent households
· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
· Blended and extended families
· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
· Adult children living with and caring for their parents
· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers
· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.
...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 3 min Tubal Cain 1,931
Man alleges sexual abuse as anti-gay 'conversion' 27 min The Rogue 33
Op-ed: Gay Voice Is Ruining Lives 1 hr Fa-Foxy 8
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Jobias3890 55,946
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 459
Online sleuths aid police in gay-beating case 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 23
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 3 hr George 1,448
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,120
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr woodtick57 71
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 834
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••