Would it be trolling to write a letter to the paper to make people think?

Remove all ads!

There's a big debate going on in the "letters to the editor" section of the local newspaper on gay marriage. It's also all over the editorial section and was in the Springfield debates.

The whole issue is on redefining marriage and a married couple, and it reminded me of something I recall reading in history class about a national issue with Polygyny in the mid 19th century that resulted in Utah being required to outlaw it before it would be allowed Statehood.

Why is it that we're considering rewriting the marriage laws to allow one form of alternate lifestyle (homosexual marriages), but not at the same time allowing polygamy

I'm thinking of writing a letter to the paper asking this question and citing the 1850's issue. I'm asking why we're so willing to allow one form of alternate lifestyle, while still outlawing other forms that were part of several religions in this country. I can't think of any religions that go for homosexual marriages, but at least two religions as well as the Old Testament of the Bible allow polygyny.

I feel that if we're going to alter marriage laws to accomidate alternate lifestyles such as homosexuality, then we should also allow group marriages. Of course, said marriages should be between consenting adults with no coercion (no arranged marriages with a 30-year-old man and a group of teenage brides).

I'm not really interested in such a marriage by myself, although I personally am straight, and while I'll admit had plenty of dreams as a teenager of bedding two women at once, I'm having enough trouble finding one woman to marry and I've learned that it can be hard enough to satisfy one woman in bed.
I'm just thinking of writing the letter to make people think.

Would doing so for that reason be considered trolling?

I will have to do a little research to refresh myself on the facts. It's been between 15-20 years since I read about the polygamy/polygyny debate in history (97/98 for community college, 95/96 for high school history, 92/93 for jr. high) and I'm not straight on all my facts.
I'm serious about this, but afraid of being publicly labeled a troll as I'd be signing my real name in the paper.

 

Yes, but the trolling wouldn't really be very effective or thought provoking. Heterosexual couples are able to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage, but homosexual couples currently do not enjoy those same benefits. These rights are being denied on the basis gender, and this is increasingly being viewed as unconstitutional. Were the Courts or Congress to uphold this viewpoint with legislation or a court decision, this would quite unamiguously not carry over to Polygamy. There are currently no Americans legally enjoying the benefits of marriage with multiple spouses. As such, polygamists are not being denied a right that others receive. This entire line of reason is a Red Herring -- and it smacks of desperation.

 

I'm actually in favor of allowing a polygamous relationship, it's not just intended as "desperation" or a "red herring". I'm also not limited to it being "one man and his harem" but also "one woman and her men". As long as it's conceptual, I don't care if somebody wants to have an unusual relationship.

I also remember back in junior high thinking that it kinda went against the 1st amendment as it was a different religion that viewed it as acceptable. Yes, I know that argument opens the door for such things as human sacrifice, but my view is that the government shouldn't interfere in one's personal life or religious beliefs as long as you aren't hurting anyone but yourself or somebody who has given their informed consent.

Anyways, I felt that if the mormans wanted to have group marriages, that was their choice.
Of course, I also heard about some teenage girls who were forced to marry an older man, and I was strongly against that. That's a whole different ball game than two women who are interested in the same man deciding to share him, or two bisxual women and a man making their Ménage à trois a regular and permanent thing. I have no problem with giving such a thing legal backing.

I also personally don't have a problem with a stable homosexual couple getting married.
I just feel that all these alternate lifestyles should be given equal consideration, especially since there is still a minority today that practices polygamy even though it's against the law.
As long as it's their choice, I don't have a problem with it.

I admit I'm more of a "laissez faire" type person than a "nanny state" person when it comes to victimless crimes. It's only when you start hurting others (and that includes exploitation in both economic and sexual senses) that the government has a right to start interfering. I take "if it harms none, do what you will" to heart.
Then again, I admit I am a bit of a deviant in my views from a sociological viewpoint.
I actually wrote a paper for a mandatory ethics class in college that explains my "Laissez-faire" better, but it is hard to summarize the exceptions. Heck, most of the actual idea was written above, the rest was putting in caverts and exceptions.

Sorry I'm getting a bit sidetracked. I was just about to goto bed when I saw the response, and I'm probably going to regret typing this in a sleep-deprived state.

 

Now THAT ...

... is trolling. Your entire paragraph there indicates a bit of naivety on the subject. But I'll let our own Johnny Storm do his thing.

 

I think one of the main arguments is that polygamy is a choice whereas homosexuality isn't.

Personally I think gay marriage is great. They have every right to be as bloody miserable as the rest of us!

 

If to troll requires malicious intent to provoke emotional responses via some form of subversion and/or deceit, then your letter would not be trolling IMO.

 

Under the current legal system polygamy could not be implemented without leaving the door open for all sort of abuse (financial and otherwise). Considering the demand the legalization of polygamy is in no way worth it.

 

I did say I need to do a bit of research before I write to the paper. I'm basing this on half-remembered lessons from history class that was between 15-20 years ago. I can't recall if it was covered most in depth in 8th grade, junior year of high school, or my first year at community college. All touched on it, but only one went more than a paragraph or two, and the different classes focused on different things although all spent a lot of time on the Civil War and WWII (big surprise). It all blurs together. I graduated 8th grade 20 years ago this week.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 15 seconds later... ----------

I've heard another definition of trolling being to stir up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble. Which is why I asked if this would make me a troll. I'm not trying to deceive anyone, just make them think things through and maybe bring even more tolerance into law.

I'm just trying to say if we're going to allow one alternate lifestyle, we should consider others that also have minority followings in this country.

==
If it harms none, do what you will.

 

This is a first for me on the boards. I want to both dislike and like a post.

 

Which bit is which?

 

Right, so being as you have no malicious intent and are not just trying to stir up trouble for trouble's sake, it would not be trolling. Trolling depends on intent.

 

I would have to imagine he wrote it in the order he intended. He disliked the first part and liked the second part.

And I have to at least half agree with him. I do not view polygamy as something that qualifies as a choice. Unless you view following any given law as a choice. It's illegal - you are compelled to NOT practice polygamy. I consider myself a law abiding citizen, but I certainly don't make an active choice each and every day to not break the law. For example, I didn't make a choice not to steal anything today - I just didn't do so. And I think most people feel an obligation to not break the law.

The other thing is that in almost all cases of polygamy it stems from a religious belief system, and in that sense, it's not really a choice either. I suppose you can say you "choose" which religion you practice, but most religions are not a la carte. Meaning if you do practice a religion, you have to take it whole hog. Once you start getting into things such as religion, morals, and ethics, I think choice largely goes out the window. If you follow a religion that allows polygamy, you may feel compelled to say it's OK and participate in it, whereas if you don't follow such a religion, the law compels you to not participate in it.

Now, if Snook was saying he disagreed about the part of homosexuality not being a choice, I would have to disagree with him. But based on comments he has posted here on the boards, I believe Snook doesn't hold such a belief. And I'll let him correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

OK maybe I phrased it badly. I mean that homosexuality is an in-built thing. You can't choose to have a specific sexual preference; you either are or you aren't.

However, you can choose to have 1, 2, 3, 4 + spouses...or, indeed, none at all.

Does that clear up what I mean?

 

I'm not sure that's true across the board. I mean, it's possible that you could be a man who is sexually attracted to other men who nonetheless chooses to be heterosexual in practice, or a woman who is sexually attracted to men who nonetheless chooses to be bisexual in practice, or any other combination thereof.

 

Sure, but sexual orientation is just that -- an orientation. A straight man can choose to engage in homosexual behavior, but he's still heterosexual of he isn't sexually attracted to the men he's having relationships with. A gay man can choose to get married and even have children, but he'll still be gay if he isn't sexually attracted to women. This is what people refer to when they state you do not choose your sexual orientation.

 

Jeez Gaear you're like a puppy with a slipper! I can't think of any other way to say what I mean so just shush dammit!

 

This one?

 

Nah, that's far too cute!

 

The law in this case is somebody else imposing their beliefs and choices on others. I am saying it SHOULD be a choice, and only the participants in the family unit should have any say in it.

I also find it hard to believe that no group of 3 or more people have chosen to live together as husband(s) and wife[ves] because they genuinely love each other regardless of any religion. I feel such a situation should be allowed, just like two men should be permitted or two women.

I'll cite speeding as an example of people casually breaking the law on a daily basis. Ever drive the speed limit? You get passed like you're standing still. I'll also cite the Jim Crow laws and the segregation laws from the 1960s as examples of just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right and should be changed.
By your argument Rosa Parks was in the wrong and should be vilified, not held as the hero she is today.[/S]