The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[Katzndogz]

If the law follows no morals, there is not a single argument against polygamy.

Polygamy was morality dictated by the faith in the Mormon religion, which considers itself to be a Christian sect.

Are you saying that the State should have the power to dictate to the church what is or isn't moral?

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

 

[High_Gravity]

If the law follows no morals, there is not a single argument against polygamy.

Polygamy was morality dictated by the faith in the Mormon religion, which considers itself to be a Christian sect.

Are you saying that the State should have the power to dictate to the church what is or isn't moral?

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

Those should be legal anyways.

 

[Mertex]

How is it arguable from my understanding it is illegal and not arguable.
20 years ago gay marriage was not arguable.
I guess I don't understand the reason for marriage, why do we get married?

Well then since polygamy is illegal it's not arguable, according to you, so why is the OP making an argument about it?

Point is, you're wrong. Laws don't end arguments; laws temporarily pick a winner of the argument.

I'm not saying that, your point is that one is arguable and one is not, how do you define which is or is not arguable.
And why do we need or feel the need to marry?

Many Christian people marry because of "religion", they adhere to the Bible that states that God is against fornication and want to be right with God. I also think many people marry because of our "laws" pertaining to property/possessions. Although some states have changed their laws so that one or the other person (not married) doesn't get unfairly taken advantage of, I'm thinking that many have not. It used to be that not being married could cause a person to lose property/possessions due to a split up. Marriage allows for the property to be fairly distributed (in case of a split up) and makes sure that the parent not getting custody pays child support. Granted that good lawyers can undermine such laws and one can still get screwed (not literally). I think the main reason that gays want same-sex marriage to be legal is so that they can take advantage of the benefits provided by our laws to married couples. It may also be due to respect. Society doesn't wholeheartedly accept people just living together.

I'm sure there are many other reasons.

 

[Mertex]

They shouldn't be making decisions based on where Americans are politically. They should be making decisions based on the Constitution and the law.

They do, but you know they can't help their own convictions and those change, too, with time and thought.

Their own convictions have nothing to do with what the Constitution and the law say

It shouldn't, but the Constitution is not specific, and it becomes a matter of interpretation. The side with the most support wins.

 

[Mertex]

ModerateGOP Wrote:

I really don't see the validity in that argument at all. How will allowing two human beings (I guess they happen to be of the same sex ... but why do you care?) to marry at all open the door for such activity? You're still only allowed to file your taxes jointly with ONE spouse, you're still only allowed to marry ONE person at a time ... that person can just now be of the same sex. Not a big deal, and quite frankly, it should be burried as an issue now; I'm glad equality has been realized, so let's focus on more pressing issues.

First and foremost...make sure you aren't confusing someone discussing this topic with someone being for or against gay or polygamist marriages. I know people who are against both gay and polygamist marriage who can argue quite convincingly for why they both should be legalized....and I know people who have not an ounce of anti-gay or anti-polygamist feeling in their body who can argue that legalizing these marriages is a bad idea for our country.

Here's the basic concept as explained to me by my attorney-husband:

The issue at hand is PRECEDENT. Arguing lawyers in the future will cite the fact that we had a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman of the same race for decades. Then it changed as societal norms and cultural acceptance changed to being one man and one woman of any race. It remained that way for another few decades. People who argued for same-sex marriage cite the caselaw that legalized interracial marriages to lend support to their cause even though it is highly probably that the lawyers who argued for interracial marriage had NO INTENTION of their work being used to legalize homosexual marriage. This is because no lawyer, no judge, no court, has the ability to say, "Oh, no no no...I never meant for my decision to be used for THAT!!!"

In the future...as gay marriage becomes commonplace and doesn't destroy the country...polygamists will begin to use the same arguments originally used against homosexuality to validate their lifestyle choice. Hollywood will create characters who are loving and kind and who just happen to be in a loving, committed relationship with more than one person...people who have been in calm, supportive loving polyamorous relationships will come forward to ask for their children to be able to see their parents marriage legally recognized.

And they will go to courts and say..."the definition of marriage, as legally recognized in this country...has been changed multiple times as cultural/societal norms have changed. all we are asking is for the same rights you have bestowed on other citizens...the right to marry the person or persons we love."

And all the arguments against will sounds eerily similar to the arguments people used against interracial and homosexual marriages...and it won't be too long before judges start ruling in their favor...based on the precedent we are setting today. All of the arguments for not recognizing polygamous marriage are nothing more than "but we've ALWAYS done it this way...its ALWAYS been just TWO people," and legally speaking...we've set in motion rulings that show that how it has "always" been...is legally irrelevant.

And all you have said is that with time, when enough people are saying the same thing, showing that Society has moved to a different place/belief where an old ideology is no longer unacceptable, that the courts will also go along with it. That seems to be the natural order of things.

To hold on to a specific belief/ideology simply because we don't want to create a precedence for future change is backward thinking. We would still not allow inter-racial marriages if we had held to that concept, and that would be utterly dumb.

If and when the majority of Society feels that polygamy is okay, then it will either become the next argument for change, or people will be doing it regardless. I'm not in favor of polygamy, and I believe the majority of people in America are against it, even though we do have people who practice it, so I'm not worried that we will be discussing acceptance of polygamy any time in the near future simply because same-sex marriage is finally gaining acceptance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the law follows no morals, there is not a single argument against polygamy.

Polygamy was morality dictated by the faith in the Mormon religion, which considers itself to be a Christian sect.

Are you saying that the State should have the power to dictate to the church what is or isn't moral?

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

So, for example, if a state that licenses pharmacists and/or the business that hires them requires them to dispense prescribed contraceptives, or the so-called abortion pills, as part of their duties,

a pharmacist with a religious based moral objection to doing so should not expect any accommodation/exemption from the State, or government protection of any such right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the law follows no morals, there is not a single argument against polygamy.

Polygamy was morality dictated by the faith in the Mormon religion, which considers itself to be a Christian sect.

Are you saying that the State should have the power to dictate to the church what is or isn't moral?

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

Who decided for all of us that polygamy is immoral?

 

[Seawytch]

Polygamy was morality dictated by the faith in the Mormon religion, which considers itself to be a Christian sect.

Are you saying that the State should have the power to dictate to the church what is or isn't moral?

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

Who decided for all of us that polygamy is immoral?

The guys who were losing all the best women to the richest guy in town.

 

[Agit8r]

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

Who decided for all of us that polygamy is immoral?

The guys who were losing all the best women to the richest guy in town.

Well, the Waite court was pretty pro-plutocracy, but they upheld anti-polygamy laws. It is briefly covered here:

Freedom FROM Religion - Broowaha

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh please polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormons. The state already dictated to the Mormon church what was legal and moral when the law forbid polygamous Mormon marriage.

If the State has no morality, does not dictate moral behavior and is amoral as state policy, there is no reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry or polyamory.

Who decided for all of us that polygamy is immoral?

The guys who were losing all the best women to the richest guy in town.

On that basis you would think conservatives would love polygamy. Enforced monogamy is a redistribution of wealth.

 

[DarkLion]

Whether they are successful immediately or not, polygamists and their allys will absolutely go to courts and site the caselaw being made now in their fight to have their marriages legally recognized.

Precedent for Roe v. Wade went back to a case regarding whether or not married couples could ask their family doctor for birth control options. Do you think that the Supreme Court that said married couples have the right to not get pregnant thought that their decision would be used as a way to argue that single women should be able to abort their unwanted babies? Of course not...thats the way precedent works...no one intends their decisions to be used for all of the ways they are...thats why its so friggin' important.

I find it hysterical, however, how many gay marriage supporters are quick to offer the same excuses used against gay marriage (no societal benefit, insurance companies would take issue, it would cause problems for family law, etc.) to argue against recognizing marriages that THEY disagree with.

We've taken a large step towards legalizing/recognizing gay marriage nation-wide. We've stated as a nation that love is love. That marriage is not a religious institution, but rather a contract between two consenting adults (we've changed it from a consenting man and woman). Now that we've recognized all these changes...I think its amusing how many people here think that they can just STOP the changes because they got it to where THEY want it.

***Oh, and as a side-note...I really wish that people who support gay marriage but are afraid or unable to discuss polygamy would STOP equating it to bestiality and pedophilia. You just spent years arguing that consenting adults should have the right to love who they want and be in legally recognized marriages with the people they love. To turn around and say that if a person chooses to love two people instead of one should be lumped in with people who like to rape children and animals is disgusting and cruel and shows you to be no better than the people who equate homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.***

Hey, I got an idea, how about YOU not equate bestiality with pedophilia, hmmm? Thanks in advance.

But you're damn right, love is love. I find it funny how those who are in favor of homosexual marriage/rights will use the very same arguments homophobes use when they condemn zoosexuality. Hypocritical to the extreme.