Opposition to polygamy -- any basis otehr than bigotry or lack of Biblical knowledge?

[edward777]

Seriously, if we say two men can marry why not allow a man and two women to marry? We have a seriously low birthrate in the developed nations and polygamy would help. We might also bump up the quality of the gene pool a bit if women could marry men who were higher up on the food chain rather than having to settle on bottom feeders.

And never once did the Bible condemn polygamy. In fact only the Koran limits the number of wives a man can have to four.

 

[VaderNinurta]

If you try and plunge into the inadequacies of human thought and behavior, you will only be dumbfounded and frustrated by the illusiveness of any conclusive answers.

Most peoples beliefs are based on subjective emotional impulses, as a result they exist inside a recurring loop of irrationality. They are not in a position to posit what is right or wrong as their foundational basis of thinking is flawed by their limited, illusory insight.

There is Order in the Universe which can be observed OBJECTIVELY, and through the elucidation of this Order it is possible to arrive at a place of understanding, where right and wrong can correctly be understood.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seriously, if we say two men can marry why not allow a man and two women to marry?

Disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it singles-out a specific class of persons for discrimination.

Laws banning polygamy apply equally to all, there is no specific class singled-out. Because no civil rights are preempted, states and other jurisdictions need not justify their actions because no court challenge is warranted. Consequently your question is moot.

If a state were to disallow polygamy for Asians only, for example, that would be a possible violation and warrant a challenge in Federal court.

States have great latitude with regard to the laws they enact, provided they’re applied equally to all citizens and all citizens have equal access to the laws.

 

[edward777]

Seriously, if we say two men can marry why not allow a man and two women to marry?

Disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it singles-out a specific class of persons for discrimination.

Laws banning polygamy apply equally to all, there is no specific class singled-out. Because no civil rights are preempted, states and other jurisdictions need not justify their actions because no court challenge is warranted. Consequently your question is moot.

If a state were to disallow polygamy for Asians only, for example, that would be a possible violation and warrant a challenge in Federal court.

States have great latitude with regard to the laws they enact, provided they’re applied equally to all citizens and all citizens have equal access to the laws.

Not so -- two people who share the same father may not marry in any state even though they are male and female so one could apply your reasoning and say that the states discriminate on the basis of family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not so -- two people who share the same father may not marry in any state even though they are male and female so one could apply your reasoning and say that the states discriminate on the basis of family.

Incorrect, as this also applies to all equally.

Now, if the state were to pass a law saying two Asian people who share the same father may not marry, that may be a 14th Amendment violation.

And it’s not ‘my reasoning,’ btw, it’s the Framers’ of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s.

 

[edward777]

Just because a bad law applies to all does not make it right, or constitutional. I really do not believe the founders of this nation would nave accepted your premise at all.

Now if you want to go by Supreme Court cases the Reyholds decision to make polygamy illegal also ruled the the USA was a Christian nation and that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just because a bad law applies to all does not make it right, or constitutional.

There are many laws that are bad but are also Constitutional, see: PA.

The Constitution protects the civil rights of Americans from government excess, it was never designed to protect them from bad laws.

I really do not believe the founders of this nation would nave accepted your premise at all.

Citation?

Now if you want to go by Supreme Court cases the Reyholds decision to make polygamy illegal also ruled the the USA was a Christian nation and that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

?

United States v. Reynolds? What does a case where government privilege to withhold information for reasons of national security have to do with polygamy, a Christian nation, and marriage between a man and a woman?

 

[edward777]

Reynolds: Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On polygamy.

 

[Tank]

 

[California Girl]

Fucking misogynists. Why is it always about how many wives some guy can have? What about women having 4 husbands?

 

[edward777]

Fucking misogynists. Why is it always about how many wives some guy can have? What about women having 4 husbands?

Once watched a video about a woman married to two brothers -- takes place in Nepal occasionally. The men said it was okay if the wife was able to do her household chores and then take care of their needs.

On the other hand, watched a clip where three women were married to one man in Salt Lake. They bragged about how this enabled them to have the freedom to do things on their own (built in day care), take care of their physical fitness and take part in other interests they might have.

Okay, if ya want to have several men in the house.....

 

[California Girl]

Fucking misogynists. Why is it always about how many wives some guy can have? What about women having 4 husbands?

Once watched a video about a woman married to two brothers -- takes place in Nepal occasionally. The men said it was okay if the wife was able to do her household chores and then take care of their needs.

On the other hand, watched a clip where three women were married to one man in Salt Lake. They bragged about how this enabled them to have the freedom to do things on their own (built in day care), take care of their physical fitness and take part in other interests they might have.

Okay, if ya want to have several men in the house.....

I can do whatever I want or need to do.... without having a guy around.

 

[Too Tall]

Seriously, if we say two men can marry why not allow a man and two women to marry?

Disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it singles-out a specific class of persons for discrimination.

Laws banning polygamy apply equally to all, there is no specific class singled-out. Because no civil rights are preempted, states and other jurisdictions need not justify their actions because no court challenge is warranted. Consequently your question is moot.

If a state were to disallow polygamy for Asians only, for example, that would be a possible violation and warrant a challenge in Federal court.

States have great latitude with regard to the laws they enact, provided they’re applied equally to all citizens and all citizens have equal access to the laws.

Total nonsense! Asians are a race of people and gays are a 'class' of people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issue of whether or not banning civil polygamous marriage is constitutional has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

I see nothing morally/socially unacceptable with polygamy in and of itself.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously, if we say two men can marry why not allow a man and two women to marry?

Disallowing same-sex marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it singles-out a specific class of persons for discrimination.

Wrong.

Laws banning polygamy apply equally to all, there is no specific class singled-out. Because no civil rights are preempted, states and other jurisdictions need not justify their actions because no court challenge is warranted. Consequently your question is moot.

It takes a special kind of stupid to claim people want to marry someone of the same sex are a protected class while those who wan't some other arrangement with consenting adults are not.

Banning marriage among two people of the same sex applies equally to all. Your argument goes beyond idiocy.

If a state were to disallow polygamy for Asians only, for example, that would be a possible violation and warrant a challenge in Federal court.

States have great latitude with regard to the laws they enact, provided they’re applied equally to all citizens and all citizens have equal access to the laws.

Yes, and current marriage laws meet the requirement. The liberal claim that they don't is pure delusion.

 

[bripat9643]

Not so -- two people who share the same father may not marry in any state even though they are male and female so one could apply your reasoning and say that the states discriminate on the basis of family.

Incorrect, as this also applies to all equally.

So does the rule that two people of the same sex can't marry. Anyone who denies it is either a liar or an imbecile

Now, if the state were to pass a law saying two Asian people who share the same father may not marry, that may be a 14th Amendment violation.

And it’s not ‘my reasoning,’ btw, it’s the Framers’ of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s.

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the matter, and the 14th Amendment doesn't mention homosexuals.

 

[bripat9643]

Total nonsense! Asians are a race of people and gays are a 'class' of people.

Homosexuality is a behavior. As such, it's not protected by the Constitution any more than spitting on the sidewalk is protected.

 

[bripat9643]

Total nonsense! Asians are a race of people and gays are a 'class' of people.

What part of the words "all" and "people" and "treated equally" escapes your grasp?

And as a "class" all gay people are treated as "second class" without equal rights.

They are treated exactly the same as polygamists.

 

[bripat9643]

What part of the words "all" and "people" and "treated equally" escapes your grasp?

And as a "class" all gay people are treated as "second class" without equal rights.

They are treated exactly the same as polygamists.

So they can marry their chosen adult love partner in all 50 states? When did THAT come about?

Can a polygamist do that?

You're not very good at this logic stuff, are you?

I guess, for some, denial isn't just a river in Egypt!

It sure beats idiocy such as yours.

 

[Sarah G]

I think abuse comes into play. Don't they take children as young as 13 for wives?

They also take relatives for wives as well. There are reasons for the opposition..