New York Times weighs in on polygamy

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
Other than religious reasons, why should polygamy not be legal?

It is consenting adults entering into a relationship/legal contract. Why do we care?

Yes, some laws may have to be adjusted and some standards for divorce changed. But is that such a problem?
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Religions are often ok with polygany. When people object to polygamy the reason's obvious. If women can have more than one husband men are becomming the subserviant member of the marriage, and women the dominant one. The religious objections are hypocritical and showing the double-standard. It's ok for a man to have multiple wives, but not vice-versa.

Outside of religion, the only possible way of objecting to either is on economic grounds if additional spouses incur the advantages and tax-breaks of the first spouse like. It'd create a potential for abuse as some would try to have massive marriages with undo economic advantage over conventional 1-1 marriages.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,152
Reaction score
7,299
Points
280
Location
On a hill
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,064
Reaction score
10,374
Points
2,040
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,152
Reaction score
7,299
Points
280
Location
On a hill
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Yep - and the net result in 10 years will be the complete destruction of marriage. Which is over half way there now.
 

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Right, and next people will be able to marry their dog, people will be able to marry 8 year old children ect ect ect

This sort of nonsense is the lowest form of strawman.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,152
Reaction score
7,299
Points
280
Location
On a hill
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Right, and next people will be able to marry their dog, people will be able to marry 8 year old children ect ect ect

This sort of nonsense is the lowest form of strawman.
This sort of nonsense is par for the course and happens often.
They said the same thing about polygamy when gay marriage first came about....and whalah..it will happen.
Do I think they will legalize marrying 8 year olds - no...but other variants will.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,064
Reaction score
10,374
Points
2,040
Next is incest. Congrats libs!
Really? Please feel free to explain the correlation between incest and polygamy.
Out among the Fundementalist Mormons, its one and the same (at the cousin/uncle level at least. )

The correlation is in the argument used to allow it. We argue that polygamy is detrimental to society, mostly because the current models are grossly demeaning to women, and to the young sons who have to get banished from thier communities to keep up the marital gender imbalance. There is also the whole underage thing with some of the sects.

With Incest the detriment is genetically messed up offspring, and the fact that alot of these incestuous relationships are often abusive.

The argument from the other side is that not all of those relationships are like that, and who "is someone else to judge" if two, five, or hundred people really love each other, or if a father/daughter brother/sister or sister/sister (rules out the freaky offspring) really love each other?
 

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Yep - and the net result in 10 years will be the complete destruction of marriage. Which is over half way there now.
Half of all marriages end in divorce. 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime.

Do you really think gays and polygamists can do more to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage than straights have already done?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,064
Reaction score
10,374
Points
2,040
I remember when O'Reilly and other commentators said polygamy would be next...and they were of course scoffed at and called haters.
And once polygamy is passed...which will be quick...what next? Daughters marrying their fathers?
Not to compare the two - but once you go down these paths - they always, always lead to ridiculousness.
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Right, and next people will be able to marry their dog, people will be able to marry 8 year old children ect ect ect

This sort of nonsense is the lowest form of strawman.
No, after polygamy I see incest laws and age of consent laws to around 14 or so being challenged.

Remember NAMBLA people arent pedophiles, they are pederasts, big difference.
 

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
Next is incest. Congrats libs!
Really? Please feel free to explain the correlation between incest and polygamy.
Out among the Fundementalist Mormons, its one and the same (at the cousin/uncle level at least. )

The correlation is in the argument used to allow it. We argue that polygamy is detrimental to society, mostly because the current models are grossly demeaning to women, and to the young sons who have to get banished from thier communities to keep up the marital gender imbalance. There is also the whole underage thing with some of the sects.

With Incest the detriment is genetically messed up offspring, and the fact that alot of these incestuous relationships are often abusive.

The argument from the other side is that not all of those relationships are like that, and who "is someone else to judge" if two, five, or hundred people really love each other, or if a father/daughter brother/sister or sister/sister (rules out the freaky offspring) really love each other?
If the women in question willingly enter into the relationship, who are you to determine she should not be allowed?

Abuse is illegal, regardless of marital status. And the statutes concerning the age of consent are not threatened by what adults do.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,152
Reaction score
7,299
Points
280
Location
On a hill
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Yep - and the net result in 10 years will be the complete destruction of marriage. Which is over half way there now.
Half of all marriages end in divorce. 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime.

Do you really think gays and polygamists can do more to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage than straights have already done?
1 in 4 - domestic abuse...whatever. Just some dumb statistic that isn't even close to reality because it includes so many things that are not abuse.
The sanctity of marriage is falling apart all on it's own yes - obvious. But this is due to the continuance of amorality and the decline of the family in America. All terrible. This is just another crack in the foundation.
 

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
Its due to the simple fact that once you move the bar, the next group of people on the wrong side of it want to be on the "right" side as well.
Right, and next people will be able to marry their dog, people will be able to marry 8 year old children ect ect ect

This sort of nonsense is the lowest form of strawman.
No, after polygamy I see incest laws and age of consent laws to around 14 or so being challenged.

Remember NAMBLA people arent pedophiles, they are pederasts, big difference.
I have asked before, who is harmed by polygamy?

If I ask that of the underage marriage, the answer is easy. It is the child.

But in a polygamous marriage, who is harmed? All of those involved enter into it willingly. If there is abuse it should be treated like we treat any domestic abuse.

Besides, by your logic and since the statistics say 1 in 4 women experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, shouldn't we outlaw marriage completely?
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
43,818
Reaction score
8,401
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
Should polygamy become legal, people would marry multiple spouses for extra income and/or tax considerations. It would completely decimate the tax system. Don't believe me? Just look at the millions of parents who have children for the tax breaks.
 

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
Yep - and the net result in 10 years will be the complete destruction of marriage. Which is over half way there now.
Half of all marriages end in divorce. 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime.

Do you really think gays and polygamists can do more to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage than straights have already done?
1 in 4 - domestic abuse...whatever. Just some dumb statistic that isn't even close to reality because it includes so many things that are not abuse.
The sanctity of marriage is falling apart all on it's own yes - obvious. But this is due to the continuance of amorality and the decline of the family in America. All terrible. This is just another crack in the foundation.
What things are included that you, in your wisdom, deem not to be abuse?

And how does any of this actually effect your marriage at all? Mine is not effected by anyone else's marriage.
 

WinterBorn

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
36,481
Reaction score
6,427
Points
1,140
Location
Atlanta
Should polygamy become legal, people would marry multiple spouses for extra income and/or tax considerations. It would completely decimate the tax system. Don't believe me? Just look at the millions of parents who have children for the tax breaks.
Then remove the tax breaks altogether. The gov't has no business being in the marriage arena anyway.

But if you keep the tax breaks, please explain why they are there? I think using taxes to encourage or punish behavior is so far beyond wrong as to be ridiculous.

But please explain why the tax breaks are given and why those same breaks should not be afforded other, nontraditional marriages.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,152
Reaction score
7,299
Points
280
Location
On a hill
Should polygamy become legal, people would marry multiple spouses for extra income and/or tax considerations. It would completely decimate the tax system. Don't believe me? Just look at the millions of parents who have children for the tax breaks.
You can easily see what the end result will be...and I am not going on the deep end here.
The marital tax breaks will eventually be removed. The tax breaks are there to encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children.
But when marital status' value is marginalized by 'anyone can marry' - then we will see the end of the incentive.
Posted by WinterbornThen remove the tax breaks altogether. The gov't has no business being in the marriage arena anyway.

But if you keep the tax breaks, please explain why they are there? I think using taxes to encourage or punish behavior is so far beyond wrong as to be ridiculous.

But please explain why the tax breaks are given and why those same breaks should not be afforded other, nontraditional marriages.
I rest my case
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top