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

[Missourian]

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.

It singles out no one. A heterosexual is equally barred from marrying the same sex.

Next.

 

[edward777]

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..

So do monogamists. All one would have to do to make sure that did not happen is require the same rules for polygamists as for monogamists -- or is it that women are not capable of making a choice as to how they might like to live their life?

 

[bodecea]

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.

In the 1800s, the way the Mormons were treated by the rest of the US, you are propably right.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I believe laws against Incest (tho I thought this was about polygamy) are based on the concerns about genetic defects....but, if those wishing legal Incest were to ask the government to show a compelling legal reason why Incest marriages should be illegal, and the government could not do so....then I guess they would have a case.

It's obviously a genetic issue because adoptive brothers/sisters have no such legal restraints.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It singles out no one. A heterosexual is equally barred from marrying the same sex.

Next.

It singles out those who want same sex marriage. Those who want to marry someone of the same sex are a distinct minority/class.

It would be like banning Islam and then claiming that it doesn't single out Muslims because Christians, Jews, atheists, etc., etc., i.e., everyone else is also banned from practicing Islam.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No it is not a violation as it applies across the board. No one can marry someone of the same gender, regardless of sexual orientation. This has been shown over and over.
But once we let the genie out of the bottle there is no reason to disallow polygamy. This is especially so given there are Muslims (and Jews) with more than one wife. Thus disallowing it is also an impingement on religious freedom, as well as a denial of rights under the 14th amendment.
We could extend this to incest as well. Why should a brother be denied the ability to marry his consenting sister? There is no reason to deny such a thing.
Why shouldn't the entire town of Santa Maria de la Cervezas marry citizen Juan Garcia and become citizens?
Soon the entire notion of marriage becomes a farce.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It singles out no one. A heterosexual is equally barred from marrying the same sex.

Next.

Yeah they don't get it. It doesn't matter how many times it's explained.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

So, why is polygamy bad ? Gays get equal access because they want to have sex with the same gender, but polygamist dont ?

 

[Missourian]

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.

It singles out no one. A heterosexual is equally barred from marrying the same sex.

Next.

It singles out those who want same sex marriage. Those who want to marry someone of the same sex are a distinct minority/class.

It would be like banning Islam and then claiming that it doesn't single out Muslims because Christians, Jews, atheists, etc., etc., i.e., everyone else is also banned from practicing Islam.

Your analogy is inaccurate, as freedom of religion is protected under the Constitution.

A good analogy is banning the sale of raw milk.

Only a tiny minority wish to buy raw milk.

Are they being denied equal protection?

NO.

No one may buy or sell raw milk.

Whether or not you wish to buy raw milk or whether or not you wish to marry the same gender is irrelevant when it comes to equal protection.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

It singles out no one. A heterosexual is equally barred from marrying the same sex.

Next.

It singles out those who want same sex marriage. Those who want to marry someone of the same sex are a distinct minority/class.

It would be like banning Islam and then claiming that it doesn't single out Muslims because Christians, Jews, atheists, etc., etc., i.e., everyone else is also banned from practicing Islam.

Your analogy is inaccurate.

A good analogy is banning the sale of raw milk.

Only a tiny minority wish to buy raw milk.

Are they being denied equal protection?

NO. No one may buy or sell raw milk.

Whether or not you wish to buy raw milk or whether or not you wish to marry the same gender is irrelevant when it comes to equal protection.

Dont tell, but I buy raw milk. I even give it to my kids.

 

[Ava]

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.

That will be the next judicial challenge, probably. I am loving the Reality show, "Sister Wives" but do realize that their family is the exception and not the rule when it comes to polygamy. Most of the members in the "Sister Wives" show, were brought up in polygamous families and are accustomed to it and like it, including the ups and downs. I also realize the family members know they are on TV and are no doubt receiving a healthy income, as the show has been renewed for the upcoming season. I say, "good for them."

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Some collect a big wad of government benni's to. I say if a man is stupid enough to want more then one Wife, he needs to prove he can support them.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

REASONS to promote monogamous / mutually exclusive sexual commitments:
How about:
* health and preventing disease
* emotional stability and preventing emotional abuse
* prevention of conflicts over finances and property

The Bible forbids fornication and adultery.
So unless multiple partners are mutually husband and wife to one another equally,
then some of the partners can be counted as having relations with someone
other than their spiritual spouse.

Now granted, if someone is going to have multiple partners,
I do believe it is POSSIBLE for, say, two married couples to
marry each other and all have relations with respect to marriage between
spiritual husband and wife.

But sets of three, or other unevenly matched pairs
tend to end in jealousy and disputes and are not recommended.

I don't know if you are just talking hypothetically,
but if you have ever seriously studied triads, swinging, polyamourous
and other multiple relations, you might see the problems caused
when people are not equally and evenly yoked!

Problems are hard enough to resolve with just two people committed
to each other; when conflicts become triangulated with third parties
involved, you risk both emotional harm and also physical conflicts over property.

So no, for emotional reasons alone, I would not recommend
having multiple partners; the most I would recommend is that
married couples team up in sets of four and maybe that would
have added social benefits and stability.

For one man to have several wives or one women to have
several husbands, I think it is more natural to have several partners
but to keep the sex out of it so there is no jealousy or conflicts.
Each person can have one primary partner, but just share
activities or duties nonromantically with the others if that is the purpose.
In some of the polygamous cultures, the purpose of multiple wives
was having a nanny, a cook, a secretary, a housekeeper, so all
that is still possible without getting emotionally entangled in sexual relations.

People by nature get jealous and start making comparisons
so I don't find people can be fair, they underestimate emotional needs.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

REASONS to promote monogamous / mutually exclusive sexual commitments:
How about:
* health and preventing disease
* emotional stability and preventing emotional abuse
* prevention of conflicts over finances and property

The Bible forbids fornication and adultery.
So unless multiple partners are mutually husband and wife to one another equally,
then some of the partners can be counted as having relations with someone
other than their spiritual spouse.

Now granted, if someone is going to have multiple partners,
I do believe it is POSSIBLE for, say, two married couples to
marry each other and all have relations with respect to marriage between
spiritual husband and wife.

But sets of three, or other unevenly matched pairs
tend to end in jealousy and disputes and are not recommended.

I don't know if you are just talking hypothetically,
but if you have ever seriously studied triads, swinging, polyamourous
and other multiple relations, you might see the problems caused
when people are not equally and evenly yoked!

Problems are hard enough to resolve with just two people committed
to each other; when conflicts become triangulated with third parties
involved, you risk both emotional harm and also physical conflicts over property.

So no, for emotional reasons alone, I would not recommend
having multiple partners; the most I would recommend is that
married couples team up in sets of four and maybe that would
have added social benefits and stability.

For one man to have several wives or one women to have
several husbands, I think it is more natural to have several partners
but to keep the sex out of it so there is no jealousy or conflicts.
Each person can have one primary partner, but just share
activities or duties nonromantically with the others if that is the purpose.
In some of the polygamous cultures, the purpose of multiple wives
was having a nanny, a cook, a secretary, a housekeeper, so all
that is still possible without getting emotionally entangled in sexual relations.

People by nature get jealous and start making comparisons
so I don't find people can be fair, they underestimate emotional needs.

Gays spread more disease. And if all the partners did not sleep around then disease is not an issue.

 

[LumpyPostage]

Polygamy is an abomination. Polyandry is where it's at.

 

[edward777]

* health and preventing disease
* emotional stability and preventing emotional abuse
* prevention of conflicts over finances and property

1) Islamic nations, in which polygamy is common, have a very low rate of STDs and HIV. And if we want to throw in inherited diseases then perhaps men who stay healthy and young-looking (therefore a stronger DNA) into their 40s, 50s and 60s will attract women who are still fertile and will reproduce with them. So just like women who go to sperm donation clinics have a much lower rate of children with birth defects....

2) Oh please, everyone knows someone within a 1 block radius that is in a dysfunctional monogamous relationship. So shall we ban all marriage?

3) Ever hear of pre-nups? Actually, every single couple getting married should be required to have one -- it would put family court lawyers out of business though.