Except for the fact “legally” they would be breaking the law. Two men who got married before the supreme court decision would not have been recognized by some states but they would not be thrown into the pokey. You practice polygamy and don’t stop, prison time is a possibility. DOn’t remember any state throwing married lesbian couples into jail…legally now there is no reason why a bisexual man cannot marry a man and woman in the pursuit of happiness.
The state redefined what marriage is. It seems to say that marriage should not be restricted to adult males marrying females. A homosexual is attracted to those of its own sex and now in the pursuit of happiness and equality can marry with all the legal benefits. Bisexuals are attracted to both and legally should not be forced to chose one or the other in marriage.
Perhaps you are confused about the difference between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage. One is legal; the other is not.The polygamy laws would be considered discriminating against bisexuals.
.
You make no sense. Polygamy laws, using your analogy, also would be considered discriminating against heterosexuals and homosexuals as well. That argument didn’t fly; multiple partners, whether same or opposite sex, is against the law in this country. You are throwing up straw dogs.The polygamy laws would be considered discriminating against bisexuals.
Yes laws were repealed in regards to same sex marriage. First the laws against sodomy were struck down to pave the way.
The courts opened wide the door to overthrow polygamy laws. Legally there is no reason why more than two people cannot unite.You make no sense. Polygamy laws, using your analogy, also would be considered discriminating against heterosexuals and homosexuals as well. That argument didn’t fly; multiple partners, whether same or opposite sex, is against the law in this country. You are throwing up straw dogs.
Then why didn’t the courts throw the door wide open to polygamy when interracial marriage restrictions were eliminated or when sodomy no longer was considered a crime?The courts opened wide the door to overthrow polygamy laws. Legally there is no reason why more than two people cannot unite.
They will eventually. It is only a matter of time as there are probably millions of couples not satisfied with one partner.Then why didn’t the courts throw the door wide open to polygamy when interracial marriage restrictions were eliminated or when sodomy no longer was considered a crime?
What is the legal reason to restrict marriage between only two adults?Perhaps you are confused about the difference between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage. One is legal; the other is not.
Also, most of the bisexuals I happen to know are involved in one relationship at a time, be it dating or marriage. Are you saying your bisexual acquaintances are always polygamous?
The racial laws had to do with appearance, which has no bearing on the nature of marriage. Sodomy may or may not be considered a civil crime, but it can’t be marriage because there is no sexual complementarity. Complementarity is needed for marriage.Then why didn’t the courts throw the door wide open to polygamy when interracial marriage restrictions were eliminated or when sodomy no longer was considered a crime?
It seems the original polygamy laws were directed at Mormons.Claims were made that these marriages exploited women and children and that the bedrock of our society has always been traditional monogamous marriage. One district court ruling against a polygamous man referenced laws banning incest and homosexuality as well! So a judge was grouping these instances all as abnormal and contrary to the good of society.You make no sense. Polygamy laws, using your analogy, also would be considered discriminating against heterosexuals and homosexuals as well. That argument didn’t fly; multiple partners, whether same or opposite sex, is against the law in this country. You are throwing up straw dogs.
As did some judges who upheld interracial marriage bans, the ban against miscegenation, because the Bible was against the mongrelization of the races.It seems the original polygamy laws were directed at Mormons.Claims were made that these marriages exploited women and children and that the bedrock of our society has always been traditional monogamous marriage. One district court ruling against a polygamous man referenced laws banning incest and homosexuality as well! So a judge was grouping these instances all as abnormal and contrary to the good of society.
Good point, and I agree with this argument.IT does no such thing. Polygamy is against the law; laws have been passed to say a man can’t have 16 wives. There’s never been a law that said two men can’t marry; it just wasn’t allowed by the previous definition of marriage. The courts didn’t invalidate any law that said " “You two men can’t get married or you will go to the pokey.” Instead, the courts said the institution of marriage also should include two people of same sex.
Gay marriage supporters don’t proselytize for polygamy, bestiality or any other such aberration, as didn’t supporters of mixed marriages. It’s a slippery slope that doesn’t exist.
Why doesn’t it? Marriage had always been man & woman. Now you say man & man or woman & woman also. Why does it stop there–if you were able to redefine it to get what you want–why does one get to say marriage is limited to two individuals? By what authority can you limit it at all? Why can’t three or four people love each other wholly and undivided? Sorry, you opened the door–after all you said we couldn’t limit it to a man and woman so what make you think it can be limited to two people? Marriage existed not because two people loved each other–it’s a bit more than that.Don’t make this a slippery slope argument.
It depends on the rationale for gay marriage. Just because the civil definition has broadened to include (or, depending on one’s view, has finally recognized) the ability of same sex couples to marry does not therefore mean any definition at all is is now possible. If the rationale is that gay persons can marry only because they are a pair of consenting adults, then yes, perhaps that leaves a future open to other definitions of marriage. But if the rationale is that gay persons can marry because they are two individuals who are able to love each other wholly and undivided, then multiple persons are excluded.
Because no such door to multiple partners was opened after the state redifined marriage as no longer limited to just people of the same race. No need to create boogie men where they don’t existWhy doesn’t it? Marriage had always been man & woman. Now you say man & man or woman & woman also. Why does it stop there–if you were able to redefine it to get what you want–why does one get to say marriage is limited to two individuals? By what authority can you limit it at all? Why can’t three or four people love each other wholly and undivided? Sorry, you opened the door–after all you said we couldn’t limit it to a man and woman so what make you think it can be limited to two people? Marriage existed not because two people loved each other–it’s a bit more than that.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
There were laws defining marriage as between a man and woman–those laws have been struck down. You’ve heard of DOMA correct? And you think laws against polygamy can’t likewise be struck down? Laws can be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.Because there are laws against polygamy; those laws would have to be repealed. No such law was appealed when gays were included in the right to marry.
For the same reason they didn’t throw the doors wide open to “gay marriage” either. No one questioned that marriage was between one man and one woman. That was marriage. The reason the interracial marriage restrictions were unconstitutional was not because two people of opposite race “loved” each other and couldn’t marry–it was because two men (women) of opposite race–didn’t have equal opportunity to marry the same woman(man). The two men(women) were treated differently–i.e. I could marry a woman that an African american man couldn’t and vice versa. In this regard a gay man and myself were not treated any differently–neither of us could marry a man and both of us could marry a woman.Then why didn’t the courts throw the door wide open to polygamy when interracial marriage restrictions were eliminated or when sodomy no longer was considered a crime?
I do not think your post was a waste of time Charles041.I can see now posting this question on CA was a waste of time. I came here to ask like minded people help in apologetics and I created controversy. If I wanted to spark a debate I would have asked in Facebook.
back to churchmilitant.com i guess.
I’ll post on CA when I have a meaningless topic. Like the environment or Donald trump.
It seems you believe that the laws forbidding multiple partners will be eventually struck down. In USA the laws were created and enforced primarily because they claimed polygamy exploited women and children.Can you link me some evidence that consenting, unmarried, legal adults could not be married?
If I don’t have natural law
and I don’t have cannon law
Why can’t I marry my step brother or a group of close loving friends?
This is beside the point anyways. I was looking for facts about societal consequences of polygami.
Because this is our future and I want to raise awareness now
usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/02/montana-polygamous-marriage-license-supreme-court/29612673/
news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/10.19/01_monogamy.htmlGood point, and I agree with this argument.