New York Times weighs in on polygamy

Who is forcing them? Is it a state or federal law? No, it is them listening to their religious leaders.

What benefits does a monogamous marriage provide for society that a polygamous marriage would not?

Far more stability, and far more recognition.

As a background, I dont see a consitutional right to gay marriage, if a state wants to vote for it (or against it), I have no issue, and in NY would probably vote for it myself. same as plural marriage, however it is not a consitutional right, and courts should not be able to say it is.

This is a State legislative issue, not a federal one, or a judical one.

Since that is true, why don't we remove the federal income tax benefits for married couples? After all, it is a state issue.

I would prefer to go all the way and make the tax a flat tax, but thats just me.

The Feds can write thier own tax code based on whatever conditions they want to, however they have to recognize a state contract when they use it as a benchmark, which is why i was fine with the ruling that made the part of DOMA that forbade federal recogniition of state marriages unconsitutional.
 
Far more stability, and far more recognition.

As a background, I dont see a consitutional right to gay marriage, if a state wants to vote for it (or against it), I have no issue, and in NY would probably vote for it myself. same as plural marriage, however it is not a consitutional right, and courts should not be able to say it is.

This is a State legislative issue, not a federal one, or a judical one.

Since that is true, why don't we remove the federal income tax benefits for married couples? After all, it is a state issue.

I would prefer to go all the way and make the tax a flat tax, but thats just me.

The Feds can write thier own tax code based on whatever conditions they want to, however they have to recognize a state contract when they use it as a benchmark, which is why i was fine with the ruling that made the part of DOMA that forbade federal recogniition of state marriages unconsitutional.

I would go one step beyond that and ask for the Fair Tax Act to be passed. Better for the economy. Everyone pays their taxes. And we remove the IRS completely.
 
I think it's far less terrible for a man to marry multiple women and take care of them and his children than it is for a man to knock up multiple women and abandon them and his children.

And plural marriage has always made more sense than so called same sex marriage. Because plural marriage provides opportunities to create and raise children.

Abuse and incest are wrong regardless of whether it's involved in plural marriage or any other type of relationship.

And quite frankly I can't imagine wanting to be married to more than one woman unless God specifically commanded it. It's tough enough to be married to one. Even one as amazing as my wife.

I can't imagine having two mothers-in-law. But good post.
 
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.

Just because you can't think does not mean that there are not more, perfectly valid, reasons for objecting to polygamy.
 
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.

It is not a straw man.
 
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?

Did you read the linked articles in the OP?

Didn't think so, if you had you wouldn't have to prove how stupid you are by asking a question that has already been answered.
 
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?

Did you read the linked articles in the OP?

Didn't think so, if you had you wouldn't have to prove how stupid you are by asking a question that has already been answered.

Yes, I read the article and saw the comments made there. The comments about the potential for abuse and the subjugation of women do not answer my question. Women can be abused and subjugated in a standard marriage. There is nothing about polygamy that makes it inherently abusive.
 
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.

It is not a straw man.

Yes it is. In every argument you will ever have seen from me about marriage I am addressing what is between consenting adults.
 
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?

Take a look at the Fundemental mormon communities and see who is harmed. The girls forced to marry older men, the boys forced out of the communities to keep the gender imbalance at the proper level. You can't make a law saying "polygamous marriage is OK for everyone except wierd mormons."

In addition what is the societal benefit of allowing plural marriage?

Then don't change the age of consent laws. It is that simple.

One societal benefit would be better care of the children, since it increases the opportunity for a stay-at-home parent. Since one of the big reasons given for the tax incentives to begin with is to encourage the care of the children, this adds even more.

A better question is why we, as a society, have allowed the gov't to interfere in something as private and personal as marriage.

In California it is legal to get married at any age as long as one parent shows up and you get a judge to say OK. In Delaware all you need is a signed permission slip from a parent.

I guess that means that you should be arguing for a change in the laws instead of against one.
 
Really? Please feel free to explain the correlation between incest and polygamy.

Why is incest illegal in the first place?

It is a combination of religious reasons and the increased chance of birth defects in children.

No it isn't, it is all about idiots imposing their morality on others. If it were about birth defects people with Tay-Sachs would be sterilized because they are much more likely to pass a birth defect on to their children than most brothers and sisters.
 
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?

Did you read the linked articles in the OP?

Didn't think so, if you had you wouldn't have to prove how stupid you are by asking a question that has already been answered.

Yes, I read the article and saw the comments made there. The comments about the potential for abuse and the subjugation of women do not answer my question. Women can be abused and subjugated in a standard marriage. There is nothing about polygamy that makes it inherently abusive.

Did you stick your head up your ass and discover gold? Then I suggest you pull it out and take a look at the real world.

Polygamous societies always end up systemically treating one gender as a commodity. This results in all sorts of interesting things, including a large supply of youth of the dominant gender that have absolutely no chance of getting married and are thus forced to find another outlet for their sexual frustrations. In other words, dismissing it because woman occasionally are abused in traditional marriage is no different than dismissing slavery because people occasionally get stiffed on their wages.

Only a complete ignoramus asswipe would make that argument.
 
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.

It is not a straw man.

Yes it is. In every argument you will ever have seen from me about marriage I am addressing what is between consenting adults.

Sigh

A straw man argument is when someone totally misrepresents what another person is saying, and then attacks that in order to make their opponent look stupid. Arguing that same sex marriage will lead to legalized bestiality is a slippery slope argument, totally different thing.

Thanks for proving you are even dumber than I thought.
 
Did you read the linked articles in the OP?

Didn't think so, if you had you wouldn't have to prove how stupid you are by asking a question that has already been answered.

Yes, I read the article and saw the comments made there. The comments about the potential for abuse and the subjugation of women do not answer my question. Women can be abused and subjugated in a standard marriage. There is nothing about polygamy that makes it inherently abusive.

Did you stick your head up your ass and discover gold? Then I suggest you pull it out and take a look at the real world.

Polygamous societies always end up systemically treating one gender as a commodity. This results in all sorts of interesting things, including a large supply of youth of the dominant gender that have absolutely no chance of getting married and are thus forced to find another outlet for their sexual frustrations. In other words, dismissing it because woman occasionally are abused in traditional marriage is no different than dismissing slavery because people occasionally get stiffed on their wages.

Only a complete ignoramus asswipe would make that argument.

What polygamous societies are you basing your argument on? Tribal customs from Uganda? There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.

I am betting you are against the redistribution of wealth. So how is it you believe that the gov't should be involved in limiting people to one spouse so that everyone gets one?

And I guess you and I have different opinions of "occasional". Is 1 in 4 women experiencing abuse an "occasional" thing? It is rampant in our society. How about we attack THAT instead of trying to claim that 3 people (or more) who are in love and want to commit to a life together is somehow wrong?
 
Yes, I read the article and saw the comments made there. The comments about the potential for abuse and the subjugation of women do not answer my question. Women can be abused and subjugated in a standard marriage. There is nothing about polygamy that makes it inherently abusive.

Did you stick your head up your ass and discover gold? Then I suggest you pull it out and take a look at the real world.

Polygamous societies always end up systemically treating one gender as a commodity. This results in all sorts of interesting things, including a large supply of youth of the dominant gender that have absolutely no chance of getting married and are thus forced to find another outlet for their sexual frustrations. In other words, dismissing it because woman occasionally are abused in traditional marriage is no different than dismissing slavery because people occasionally get stiffed on their wages.

Only a complete ignoramus asswipe would make that argument.

What polygamous societies are you basing your argument on? Tribal customs from Uganda? There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.

I am betting you are against the redistribution of wealth. So how is it you believe that the gov't should be involved in limiting people to one spouse so that everyone gets one?

And I guess you and I have different opinions of "occasional". Is 1 in 4 women experiencing abuse an "occasional" thing? It is rampant in our society. How about we attack THAT instead of trying to claim that 3 people (or more) who are in love and want to commit to a life together is somehow wrong?

Go read some history.
 
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..

BINGO! ! !

We have a winner!
 
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.

This amorality is due to monogamous heterosexual marriage.

lol, you fucking idiot.

Doesn't Antarctica still need to your conquer the Polar bears and free the penguins or what've you bullshit lie was, I cant remember them any more, lol.
 

Forum List

Back
Top