Polygamy, is it really that far away?

[stormcloud]

Not yet. But 40 years ago, proposals for gay marriage would have had no chance of success. They will argue that children ought to have equal rights with adults, that they are capable of giving consent, and that their rights to do so ought not to be infringed. They will point out that the Catholic Church considers the “age of reason” to be about age 7, and that Mary was about 14 when she married Joseph. (Sure they are capable of using religion to make secular arguments.) They will point out that even today, minors can obtain an abortion without a parent’s consent, and that in many places, their medical records can not be released to a parent without the child’s consent. The will argue that equal rights under the law should not be denied to children of 12 or 14 merely because of their age, as that would constitute age discrimination.

In order for them to pursue that, they’ll have to go after the drinking age, the driving age, the voting age, the age at which someone can enlist in the military, etc. etc. etc. There are way too many constitutionally tested age restrictions in place in our society for this scenario to have a snowball’s chance in “you know where”.

 

[JimG]

In order for them to pursue that, they’ll have to go after the drinking age, the driving age, the voting age, the age at which someone can enlist in the military, etc. etc. etc. There are way too many constitutionally tested age restrictions in place in our society for this scenario to have a snowball’s chance in “you know where”.

Perhaps, although these other age restrictions have not had a bearing on rulings which have allowed minors to obtain abortions and contraceptives without parental involvement.

Then of course, there are the courts, which could bypass the legislative process by simply declaring that denying children equal rights to marry to be a violation of the 14th amendment. We will, within a few years, have in place a pretty liberal judicial system.

 

[stormcloud]

Perhaps, although these other age restrictions have not had a bearing on rulings which have allowed minors to obtain abortions and contraceptives without parental involvement.

Then of course, there are the courts, which could bypass the legislative process by simply declaring that denying children equal rights to marry to be a violation of the 14th amendment. We will, within a few years, have in place a pretty liberal judicial system.

That’s a pretty big leap of inductive reasoning. Remember that even in prisons, those who have sex with children are ostracized(to put it mildly) by their fellow inmates. There’s absolutely no way this society will stand for legalized molestation. (And the Supreme Court won’t be anywhere as liberal as the right wing pundits would have you fear.)

 

[goofyjim]

Look at Abraham and Isaac in the Bible. Polygamy has been around for a long time. It’s not far away at all. And don’t try to call it anything else. Having more than one spouse is polygamy and it was biblically acceptable. I don’t condone it but apparently God did at one point.

 

[a_cermak]

Some kinds of polygamy are already here. For instance the FLDS practice it, various Christian fringe groups practice it, I suppose some immigrants may practice it for all I know. The difference is these are private arrangements. The first marriage is official for the civil bennies, and all the others are religious only. I wouldn’t like the government having laws against that sort of practice as I don’t really see what distinguishes it from simple cohabitation.

I don’t think you’ll see civil recognition of polygamy (or its much less common cousin polyandry) for a long time if ever in the US. That’s because most reasonable people would balk at the unfairness of a system where the guy with more wives got more benefits. Plus the amount of divorce lawyers needing to be involved would sky rocket for the inevitable breakups.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I wouldn’t like the government having laws against that sort of practice as I don’t really see what distinguishes it from simple cohabitation.

This practice is against Utah state law, which has withstood all Constitutional challenges to date (see here).

 

[Aramis]

This practice is against Utah state law, which has withstood all Constitutional challenges to date (see here).

It’s also against both California and Alaska laws; in Alaska, it is civilly actionable. From what I’ve heard from several different polygamous immigrant families, California offered them a choice: Move to Alaska on California’s dime, or Dad goes to jail for several years and mom and mom and mom and kids get deported.

 

[Veridical16]

Look at Abraham and Isaac in the Bible. Polygamy has been around for a long time. It’s not far away at all. And don’t try to call it anything else. Having more than one spouse is polygamy and it was biblically acceptable. I don’t condone it but apparently God did at one point.

That is a lack of understanding.
God allowed it to go on. He did not condone it at one point and then change his mind later, any more than he condone other actions such as the murders/adultery that even some of his prophets (Moses) and Kings (David) were guilty of…God’s ten commandments clearly disapprove of these actions. Just because God didn’t say “Hey! Stop that!” every time Jewish individuals committed the act of sin, did not mean God approved.
Humanity underwent maturation when the children of Abraham were selected and set apart from other way, wayward cultures. The Bible in fact reveals the consequences of bigamy to polygamy. God said it several times *without *saying it. King David is an example of polygamy having consequences through natural law. Resentment, incest among his children, AND the loss of his sons’ lives via jealousy and fights over birthrights, etc. jealousy among mothers and lack of connection of one mother to a non-related son. Solomon took it even further, and he fell from grace because of having too many women dilute his priorities…And Solomon was even warned about taking so many wives by God.
Isaac and Ishmael had to be separated thanks to the interests of the favored wife, and Jacob had his son Joseph resented by brothers from other mothers…

Jesus clearly states the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. And Paul elaborates on that point more by the time of New Testament…
Just because God tolerated it as a practice, did not mean he sanctioned it under the law.

There’s a reason why God made Adam and Eve, and not Adam, Eve, Eva, Erica, Ella, Etc.

There’s also a reason for God sending his son to be raised by one Mother and one Father.

The impacts from polygamy being practiced in today’s times will further degrade society if it is practiced as another “norm.”
For these very reasons. Some families already have enough trouble trying to raise their kids right and prevent siblings from fighting each other through rivalry.
A Man has enough trouble making his wife happy enough as it is!
Polygamy = Spinning plates

 

[goofyjim]

That is a lack of understanding.
God allowed it to go on. He did not condone it at one point and then change his mind later, any more than he condone other actions such as the murders/adultery that even some of his prophets (Moses) and Kings (David) were guilty of…God’s ten commandments clearly disapprove of these actions. Just because God didn’t say “Hey! Stop that!” every time Jewish individuals committed the act of sin, did not mean God approved.
Humanity underwent maturation when the children of Abraham were selected and set apart from other way, wayward cultures. The Bible in fact reveals the consequences of bigamy to polygamy. God said it several times *without *saying it. King David is an example of polygamy having consequences through natural law. Resentment, incest among his children, AND the loss of his sons’ lives via jealousy and fights over birthrights, etc. jealousy among mothers and lack of connection of one mother to a non-related son. Solomon took it even further, and he fell from grace because of having too many women dilute his priorities…And Solomon was even warned about taking so many wives by God.
Isaac and Ishmael had to be separated thanks to the interests of the favored wife, and Jacob had his son Joseph resented by brothers from other mothers…

Jesus clearly states the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. And Paul elaborates on that point more by the time of New Testament…
Just because God tolerated it as a practice, did not mean he sanctioned it under the law.

There’s a reason why God made Adam and Eve, and not Adam, Eve, Eva, Erica, Ella, Etc.

There’s also a reason for God sending his son to be raised by one Mother and one Father.

The impacts from polygamy being practiced in today’s times will further degrade society if it is practiced as another “norm.”
For these very reasons. Some families already have enough trouble trying to raise their kids right and prevent siblings from fighting each other through rivalry.
A Man has enough trouble making his wife happy enough as it is!
Polygamy = Spinning plates

I agree that it would degrade society but it has been here already and didn’t degrade things back then. And that was when they didn’t accpet homosexuals at all. This stupid blame game is ridiculous. Accepting homosexuals would not cause polygamy to come on when polygamy has already existed long before today’s acceptance of homosexuals. And I won’t call homosexuals a marriage but I will push for the decriminalizing of homosexual relations. Don’t see why we can drp the law enforcement against adultery but keep insane laws on the books against homosexuals. Discriminatory to say the least.

 

[Veridical16]

I agree that it would degrade society but it has been here already and didn’t degrade things back then. And that was when they didn’t accpet homosexuals at all. This stupid blame game is ridiculous. Accepting homosexuals would not cause polygamy to come on when polygamy has already existed long before today’s acceptance of homosexuals.

Don’t claim something without supporting it.
How do you know it did not degrade things back then???
I’ve seen not just in the Western world, but accounts of sorrow from first source material, when some old 11th Century writer wrote about the experiences of Concubinage practiced in China…I think you make a good point on where to draw the line in societal structures, v. the ideal…but the rest of it is flawed and "feel good " thinking. There are consequences. You just have to look it up. Crime rate statistics, Case studies of Children, Psychological Profiles, Comparative studies showing stable homes v. unstable ones…

It’s readily available today, just as it is readily available to see what wrong in societies back then…Would you say there was a trend of better civility in cultures that seemed to implement judeo-christian values in their laws, v. ones that do not??
Those cultures compared to what we’ve had so far in the 18th,19th, and 20th century have been pretty violent and destitute compared to the improvement of conditions from back then. We are in a flux right now, and regressing as a society…

I think if you search to research and investigate that question, by looking closer at history, the answers become apparent.

And I won’t call homosexuals a marriage but I will push for the decriminalizing of homosexual relations. Don’t see why we can drp the law enforcement against adultery but keep insane laws on the books against homosexuals. Discriminatory to say the least

While I agree about decriminalizing Sodomy laws…
I don’t agree with using the reinterpretation of that said law as a means for exploitation of certain statutes for the benefit of one group over another either. To use it as a vehicle to change it for one’s self-interests is a no-no…Discrimination stops being the issue, and the power grab becomes the agenda.
This is why I don’t sympathize with the gay agenda at all, because it is used as an excuse to berate a majority group that does not go along with their agenda…Asking “to be left alone, and left to their lifestyle” is one thing, but forcefully making people see it as “normal” with names and guilt trips is another.

I used to be like you in saying ‘what’s the harm’ but now I’ve learned who’s been pretty deceptive about the supposedly benign nature of this “live and let live attitude” . And by “they” I don’t mean all gay individuals, I am referring to the political agenda of the radically louder homosexuals…While I agree with leaving people alone to their privacy, and i don’t/won’t recognize gay marriage…**.they **should also leave people to their beliefs. If people think homosexuality is wrong they have the right to believe it, they shouldn’t be called bigots and they should not be guilty for instance, in the case of Catholic adoption agencies preferring hetero parents… Just like adoption agencies can discriminate between married couples and not accept applications from single people…so should citizens have a right to “discriminate” as they are their private decisions…

Be very careful when you see the word “discrimination” around…there is some that is based in bigotry, while another one is not bigotry at all.

 

[goofyjim]

Don’t claim something without supporting it.
How do you know it did not degrade things back then???
I’ve seen not just in the Western world, but accounts of sorrow from first source material, when some old 11th Century writer wrote about the experiences of Concubinage practiced in China…I think you make a good point on where to draw the line in societal structures, v. the ideal…but the rest of it is flawed and "feel good " thinking. There are consequences. You just have to look it up. Crime rate statistics, Case studies of Children, Psychological Profiles, Comparative studies showing stable homes v. unstable ones…

It’s readily available today, just as it is readily available to see what wrong in societies back then…Would you say there was a trend of better civility in cultures that seemed to implement judeo-christian values in their laws, v. ones that do not??
Those cultures compared to what we’ve had so far in the 18th,19th, and 20th century have been pretty violent and destitute compared to the improvement of conditions from back then. We are in a flux right now, and regressing as a society…

I think if you search to research and investigate that question, by looking closer at history, the answers become apparent.

While I agree about decriminalizing Sodomy laws…
I don’t agree with using the reinterpretation of that said law as a means for exploitation of certain statutes for the benefit of one group over another either. To use it as a vehicle to change it for one’s self-interests is a no-no…Discrimination stops being the issue, and the power grab becomes the agenda.
This is why I don’t sympathize with the gay agenda at all, because it is used as an excuse to berate a majority group that does not go along with their agenda…Asking “to be left alone, and left to their lifestyle” is one thing, but forcefully making people see it as “normal” with names and guilt trips is another.

I used to be like you in saying ‘what’s the harm’ but now I’ve learned who’s been pretty deceptive about the supposedly benign nature of this “live and let live attitude” . And by “they” I don’t mean all gay individuals, I am referring to the political agenda of the radically louder homosexuals…While I agree with leaving people alone to their privacy, and i don’t/won’t recognize gay marriage…**.they **should also leave people to their beliefs. If people think homosexuality is wrong they have the right to believe it, they shouldn’t be called bigots and they should not be guilty for instance, in the case of Catholic adoption agencies preferring hetero parents… Just like adoption agencies can discriminate between married couples and not accept applications from single people…so should citizens have a right to “discriminate” as they are their private decisions…

Be very careful when you see the word “discrimination” around…there is some that is based in bigotry, while another one is not bigotry at all.

When did I ever use the word bigot? I haven’t. I dare to use the word discrimination because to single out one group over another is just that. Believers have every permission to call it sin. But sin must remain an option for an unbeliever. You don’t just outlaw all sin, especially on that really has no effect on anyone else except the two people involved. Two consenting adults is just that. It has no bearing on anyone else. I respect the right to call it sin. I honor their right to still engage in it. All parties should be satisfied. As to the gist of this thread, homosexuality cannot be the cause of something that has been practiced long before society came to accept homosexuals. We’ve got our cause and effect reversed. Maybe most have done an honest selfexamination and realize that they cannot point the finger when their practices are just as wrong.

 

[wasmit]

I don’t see a problem with polygamy. Why should I have a say on whether two or more people of any sex are allowed to be married? It doesn’t affect me in any way if John, Sarah and James decide to get married polygamously.

how naïve of you.

It affects you indirectly, but it affects you. If you have children, they will ask when they encounter JS&J or their children.

And I will tell them that some people prefer to marry polygamously. How does this affect me more than my children asking about some other topic that is new to them?

It affects you by putting the expectation into others that you shouldn’t mind if they also pursue you and/or your partner.

how does the existence of polygamous couples make adultery ok? how does the existence of polygamous couples make someone cutting my lunch ok? I don’t see how it does.

It affects you by increasing the tax burden.

how does it reduce gov’t income, or increase gov’t expenditure?

It affects you because their medical risks go up, and thus also goes up your health insurance costs.

how do the medical risks go up with polygamy? What are your reasons/evidence for claiming this? Should we ban all medically-risky activities? Driving for example?

If you teach, it affects you directly, because you have to deal with the children of that mess; which children belong to which parents, and do the semi-parents have any parental rights?

What do you suggest be done to “Deal with those children”? Should they be treated differently to children of monogamous relationships?

Yes, new things require new laws/regulation. This is not a problem.

Also, if legalized, you can be required by law to teach that it is normal and healthy, no matter your personal or religious views, even in religious schools if they require a state teaching certificate.

Personal bigotry should not be protected. Should a religious person whose beliefs include racism be forced to teach in a non-racist manner?

I’ve dealt with children of polygamous marriages All these students concepts of family and marriage are in fact very oppressive of women, treating them as property. Younger sons also tend to be excluded from marriage contracts; they tend to join gangs more readily, for it is a way to gain access to women. The sub-population I’ve experienced this amongst also turns to violence when polyandry or polyamorous non marital relationships are exhibited. The subcultures engaged in polygamy are also rapid breeders, producing disproportiontely large families, and doing so on public assistance funding in many cases.

So it does affect you.

How does a male child having chauvinistic views affect me?

Are you claiming that younger male children of patriarchal polygamous families tend to join gangs?

While large families do tend to receive more gov’t handouts, they also create more taxpayers.

I’m not convinced that polygamous marriage affects me at all.