Polygamy

[catzmeow]

Fine. Don't really see any reason that I would stick my nose in someone else's life or choices. Hell, I wish I could AFFORD 2 wives. How does anyone afford that

In the Kingston clan, women work for substandard wages in the family's many businesses and then receive welfare because they are low income. So, they commit welfare fraud, tax fraud, and employment fraud, not to mention child abuse issues and forcing women to go without basic medical care.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Church_of_Christ

John Ortell Kingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They threatened to kill my friend, who is a juvenile court judge, in Salt Lake City because he was presiding over a bunch of child abuse cases against some of the leadership of the clan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Kingstons are criminals organized in racketeering. The issue is criminality here, not religion. That can happen in monogamous religions, fraternal groups, when boy or girl scouts go bad, etc.

Leave religious or secular polygamy to adults over 18.

Kingston's is a criminal

Fine. Don't really see any reason that I would stick my nose in someone else's life or choices. Hell, I wish I could AFFORD 2 wives. How does anyone afford that

In the Kingston clan, women work for substandard wages in the family's many businesses and then receive welfare because they are low income. So, they commit welfare fraud, tax fraud, and employment fraud, not to mention child abuse issues and forcing women to go without basic medical care.Latter Day Church of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia John Ortell Kingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThey threatened to kill my friend, who is a juvenile court judge, in Salt Lake City because he was presiding over a bunch of child abuse cases against some of the leadership of the clan.

 

[FA_Q2]

Fine. Don't really see any reason that I would stick my nose in someone else's life or choices. Hell, I wish I could AFFORD 2 wives. How does anyone afford that

In the Kingston clan, women work for substandard wages in the family's many businesses and then receive welfare because they are low income. So, they commit welfare fraud, tax fraud, and employment fraud, not to mention child abuse issues and forcing women to go without basic medical care.


Latter Day Church of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Ortell Kingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They threatened to kill my friend, who is a juvenile court judge, in Salt Lake City because he was presiding over a bunch of child abuse cases against some of the leadership of the clan.

There is a difference in crazy cultists who practice polygamy and polygamy itself. One is wrong and exploitive. The other is none of our business.

 

[WinterBorn]

Fine. Don't really see any reason that I would stick my nose in someone else's life or choices. Hell, I wish I could AFFORD 2 wives. How does anyone afford that

In the Kingston clan, women work for substandard wages in the family's many businesses and then receive welfare because they are low income. So, they commit welfare fraud, tax fraud, and employment fraud, not to mention child abuse issues and forcing women to go without basic medical care.


Latter Day Church of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Ortell Kingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They threatened to kill my friend, who is a juvenile court judge, in Salt Lake City because he was presiding over a bunch of child abuse cases against some of the leadership of the clan.

Those are not issues concerning polygamy. Those are issues about fraud and child abuse.

That they were in a polygamous marriage is only an incidental detail.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once same sex marriage is legal, it will be impossible to deny this lifestyle "choice".

Polygamy is often brought up as a "slippery slope" argument in discussions of gay marriage.

The simple fact is that there are +/- 1,400 benefits bestowed on married people by the gov't. I'm not discussing the religious implications of marriage, just the legal ones concerning secular law.

If no one is harmed by the marriage, and all involved are consenting adults, why does the federal (or state and local) gov't not recognize it?

Why would a federal, state or local government not recognize polygamous marriage? If no one outside the marriage is affected and all parties are consenting adults, why is anyone concerned at all? After all if a pimp can handle a dozen whores, why can't a man handle five or six wives? Polygamy has been around for thousands of years. Although historically a man had to be able to provide for each one of his wives and their children. Modern polygamous marriages will have several women supporting their man.

Haven't we seen men with 20-30 children out of a dozen or more women? Is this so different than legitimate polygamous marriage? Do we not support these "families"? We are more than half way to polygamous marriage now.

 

[catzmeow]

The Kingstons are criminals organized in racketeering. The issue is criminality here, not religion. That can happen in monogamous religions, fraternal groups, when boy or girl scouts go bad, etc.

Leave religious or secular polygamy to adults over 18.

Main reason I believe it should be legalized is that it would extend some degree of protection to the women who are being victimized by groups like the Kingston Clan. A divorced wife has rights that a common law wife does not have, particularly in regards to financial support and child custody matters.

 

[catzmeow]

Fine. Don't really see any reason that I would stick my nose in someone else's life or choices. Hell, I wish I could AFFORD 2 wives. How does anyone afford that

In the Kingston clan, women work for substandard wages in the family's many businesses and then receive welfare because they are low income. So, they commit welfare fraud, tax fraud, and employment fraud, not to mention child abuse issues and forcing women to go without basic medical care.


Latter Day Church of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Ortell Kingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They threatened to kill my friend, who is a juvenile court judge, in Salt Lake City because he was presiding over a bunch of child abuse cases against some of the leadership of the clan.

There is a difference in crazy cultists who practice polygamy and polygamy itself. One is wrong and exploitive. The other is none of our business.

I'm guessing you missed my post directly above the one you've quoted.

 

[amrchaos]

I believe a woman can have several "husbands" and "pets" if the men agree to their roles.

In fact, I hear that there is a rise in women enslaving men for their "pleasures" in some Asian countries.

See what happens when you give women egos and the right to work and right to vote--they take over and enslave us men!!

Horrible, I tell you! Horrible!! If we are to weak to resist paying for some love, then we are to weak to resist being enslaved for some loving! The women have always known this and are using their V-Pal to take over the world!

It is over for us men!! I tell you.

OH--the topic is about polygamy. Well, as long it is not part of a cult I don't have much problem with it.

 

[BillyV]

Polygamy is often brought up as a "slippery slope" argument in discussions of gay marriage.

The simple fact is that there are +/- 1,400 benefits bestowed on married people by the gov't. I'm not discussing the religious implications of marriage, just the legal ones concerning secular law.

If no one is harmed by the marriage, and all involved are consenting adults, why does the federal (or state and local) gov't not recognize it?

Ah, and therein lies the question. What people do with their own lives is really none of our business; if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamist (or same sex) marriage, marry their pet, or any of a host of other behaviors, they should be free to do so. I wonder, however, what public policy goals are served by recognizing (and thereby supporting) those choices? The public policy of encouraging stable two-parent households to prevent the government from having to support the children of unstable unions and the overwhelming evidence of two-parent households as the most benevolent and supportive for children (note: the future of the country) is apparent. What public policy is served in recognizing polygamy?

First of all, when you agree with me you should leave the "pet" thing out. I specifically said consenting adults. Unless you can determine informed consent from an animal, your comment about pets is a joke.

Gay marriages would provide the same stable, two-parent household for their children. Whether their children are from previous relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption doesn't matter.

In a polygamous family situation, the family has either more bread winners or more care-givers for the children. I see no difference between a 3 parent family and a 2 parent family where your argument is concerned.

. . . What people do with their own lives is really none of our business; if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamist (or same sex) marriage, marry their pet, or any of a host of other behaviors, they should be free to do so. I wonder, however, what public policy goals are served by recognizing (and thereby supporting) those choices?

False conclusion. Marriage is a contractual obligation entered into by humans who are entitled to enter into such a contractual obligation..

Hint, BillyV, pets are not humans.

OK, I retract the pet reference; it's a weak argument that isn't really part of the larger discussion. But neither have you advanced an argument as to why public policy is better served by recognizing polygamist marriages. You can certainly argue the fairness issue, but you get no additional benefit from a three parent household than a two parent household, and perhaps less benefit from the standpoint of supporting more children with less wage earners. I'm not talking about the legality of the arrangement; if one man wants several "wives", one of which that is recognized by the government, that's fine with me. I just don't see why the government is required to sanction these unions in the same way as traditional unions. Gay unions are a different issue altogether, however I would say that from a standpoint of providing benefits to encourage stable male-female unions where children occur naturally, it isn't the same thing. Gays are required to access artificial means to create children, they don't happen as the result of unintended consequences.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ah, and therein lies the question. What people do with their own lives is really none of our business; if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamist (or same sex) marriage, marry their pet, or any of a host of other behaviors, they should be free to do so. I wonder, however, what public policy goals are served by recognizing (and thereby supporting) those choices? The public policy of encouraging stable two-parent households to prevent the government from having to support the children of unstable unions and the overwhelming evidence of two-parent households as the most benevolent and supportive for children (note: the future of the country) is apparent. What public policy is served in recognizing polygamy?

First of all, when you agree with me you should leave the "pet" thing out. I specifically said consenting adults. Unless you can determine informed consent from an animal, your comment about pets is a joke.

Gay marriages would provide the same stable, two-parent household for their children. Whether their children are from previous relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption doesn't matter.

In a polygamous family situation, the family has either more bread winners or more care-givers for the children. I see no difference between a 3 parent family and a 2 parent family where your argument is concerned.

. . . What people do with their own lives is really none of our business; if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamist (or same sex) marriage, marry their pet, or any of a host of other behaviors, they should be free to do so. I wonder, however, what public policy goals are served by recognizing (and thereby supporting) those choices?

False conclusion. Marriage is a contractual obligation entered into by humans who are entitled to enter into such a contractual obligation..

Hint, BillyV, pets are not humans.

OK, I retract the pet reference; it's a weak argument that isn't really part of the larger discussion. But neither have you advanced an argument as to why public policy is better served by recognizing polygamist marriages. You can certainly argue the fairness issue, but you get no additional benefit from a three parent household than a two parent household, and perhaps less benefit from the standpoint of supporting more children with less wage earners. I'm not talking about the legality of the arrangement; if one man wants several "wives", one of which that is recognized by the government, that's fine with me. I just don't see why the government is required to sanction these unions in the same way as traditional unions. Gay unions are a different issue altogether, however I would say that from a standpoint of providing benefits to encourage stable male-female unions where children occur naturally, it isn't the same thing. Gays are required to access artificial means to create children, they don't happen as the result of unintended consequences.

First of all, I think fairness is an issue. That the gov't selects one specific group to reward and refuses to award other couples or groups that provide the same benefits is unacceptable.

Numerous studies have shown advantages to having a stay-at-home parent for children. Having two wage earners and still having a stay-at-home parent is clearly an advantage. And those two wage earners are not supporting more with less. They have 2 wage earners for one family.

Whether the children are concieved naturally or through artificial means (or adopted) is not relevant and should not be a part of the decision as to who gets the gov't benefits. If anything, the gay couple would have to work to achieve children, whereas the straight couples have them by accident pretty often.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ah, and therein lies the question. What people do with their own lives is really none of our business; if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamist (or same sex) marriage, marry their pet, or any of a host of other behaviors, they should be free to do so. I wonder, however, what public policy goals are served by recognizing (and thereby supporting) those choices? The public policy of encouraging stable two-parent households to prevent the government from having to support the children of unstable unions and the overwhelming evidence of two-parent households as the most benevolent and supportive for children (note: the future of the country) is apparent. What public policy is served in recognizing polygamy?

First of all, when you agree with me you should leave the "pet" thing out. I specifically said consenting adults. Unless you can determine informed consent from an animal, your comment about pets is a joke.

Gay marriages would provide the same stable, two-parent household for their children. Whether their children are from previous relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption doesn't matter.

In a polygamous family situation, the family has either more bread winners or more care-givers for the children. I see no difference between a 3 parent family and a 2 parent family where your argument is concerned.

. . . What people do with their own lives is really none of our business; if consenting adults want to enter into a polygamist (or same sex) marriage, marry their pet, or any of a host of other behaviors, they should be free to do so. I wonder, however, what public policy goals are served by recognizing (and thereby supporting) those choices?

False conclusion. Marriage is a contractual obligation entered into by humans who are entitled to enter into such a contractual obligation..

Hint, BillyV, pets are not humans.

OK, I retract the pet reference; it's a weak argument that isn't really part of the larger discussion. But neither have you advanced an argument as to why public policy is better served by recognizing polygamist marriages. You can certainly argue the fairness issue, but you get no additional benefit from a three parent household than a two parent household, and perhaps less benefit from the standpoint of supporting more children with less wage earners. I'm not talking about the legality of the arrangement; if one man wants several "wives", one of which that is recognized by the government, that's fine with me. I just don't see why the government is required to sanction these unions in the same way as traditional unions. Gay unions are a different issue altogether, however I would say that from a standpoint of providing benefits to encourage stable male-female unions where children occur naturally, it isn't the same thing. Gays are required to access artificial means to create children, they don't happen as the result of unintended consequences.

The question of whether it serves public policy is debatable with very little hard data to support either side. However, I would offer that in a reasonably free society that that standard is inappropriate. If you wish to deny someone the right to live as they wish then the onus is upon you to demonstrate it is detrimental to society - not simply that it lacks benefit.

As to sanctioning, the government has determined it is appropriate for it to oversee marriage. In a legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract between competent adults. What is currently being done for both gays and polygamists, the government is intentionally discriminating against them by not allowing these contracts. That is changing for same sex marriage, but the discrimination still exists. I would go back to my first statement and argue that it is the discrimination which must be shown to be necessary, not the discriminated against. Unless there is a clear and valid reason to refuse to allow these contracts, then they should be allowed. I don't believe the fact that some folks find it "icky" constitutes a valid reason.

 

[catzmeow]

OK, I retract the pet reference; it's a weak argument that isn't really part of the larger discussion. But neither have you advanced an argument as to why public policy is better served by recognizing polygamist marriages. You can certainly argue the fairness issue, but you get no additional benefit from a three parent household than a two parent household, and perhaps less benefit from the standpoint of supporting more children with less wage earners. I'm not talking about the legality of the arrangement; if one man wants several "wives", one of which that is recognized by the government, that's fine with me. I just don't see why the government is required to sanction these unions in the same way as traditional unions. Gay unions are a different issue altogether, however I would say that from a standpoint of providing benefits to encourage stable male-female unions where children occur naturally, it isn't the same thing. Gays are required to access artificial means to create children, they don't happen as the result of unintended consequences.

Individuals shouldn't have to prove to government that they are entitled to rights, government must show cause to constrain those inalienable rights. So, unless you can show harm that is caused by these kinds of non-traditional pairings, it is not the role of government to limit the rights of individuals to pursue happiness.

 

[signelect]

I don't really care. If you can find a woman who will let you sleep around go for it. I think you are a fool and really missing out on a great deal that we call marriage between one man and one women but I really do care how stupid you are. Besides a lot of husbands and wifes sleep around and in the end that is what this is about. My opinion of course.

 

[BillyV]

First of all, I think fairness is an issue. That the gov't selects one specific group to reward and refuses to award other couples or groups that provide the same benefits is unacceptable.
Numerous studies have shown advantages to having a stay-at-home parent for children. Having two wage earners and still having a stay-at-home parent is clearly an advantage. And those two wage earners are not supporting more with less. They have 2 wage earners for one family.
Whether the children are concieved naturally or through artificial means (or adopted) is not relevant and should not be a part of the decision as to who gets the gov't benefits. If anything, the gay couple would have to work to achieve children, whereas the straight couples have them by accident pretty often.

Exactly. A gay couple does have to go through several more hoops to achieve children, even to the extent that there are qualifications to be met for adoption that require proof of stability. The government need not add more encouragement to achieve that stability, unlike the more natural and often accidental addition to a more traditional household.
As for sanctioning of polygamy, I think that leads to more serious issues relative to the “benefits” of marriage. Would you require the first wife to agree before adding the second, or is it solely the husband’s choice? What happens to the estate built through the first marriage period that the first wife helped to create, is it shared three ways now? I think you’d find upon inspection that some of the 1400 +/- marriage “benefits” (I think at least some of the “benefits” are actually “responsibilities”) may or may not fit other situations as well as those for which they were intended, and many are no doubt in direct conflict.

The question of whether it serves public policy is debatable with very little hard data to support either side. However, I would offer that in a reasonably free society that that standard is inappropriate. If you wish to deny someone the right to live as they wish then the onus is upon you to demonstrate it is detrimental to society - not simply that it lacks benefit.

As to sanctioning, the government has determined it is appropriate for it to oversee marriage. In a legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract between competent adults. What is currently being done for both gays and polygamists, the government is intentionally discriminating against them by not allowing these contracts. That is changing for same sex marriage, but the discrimination still exists. I would go back to my first statement and argue that it is the discrimination which must be shown to be necessary, not the discriminated against. Unless there is a clear and valid reason to refuse to allow these contracts, then they should be allowed. I don't believe the fact that some folks find it "icky" constitutes a valid reason.

I don't think I implied "ickiness" was in any way part of the discussion, and I find that remark somewhat offensive. I don't wish to deny anyone any freedom to live as they choose. I'm not anti-gay; I haven't really considered polygamy as within the confines of normal society, so haven't really given that much thought either way. However, the government often encourages behavior if it is within the boundaries it has set. We encourage homeownership with a tax deduction and government sponsored mortgage enterprises, but only if you buy a home and live in it. The public policy goal is more stable neighborhoods. Do you find that unfair to renters or those who own multiple houses? Is it discrimination?
We encourage charitable giving, but only if your donation is given to a recognized charitable organization. The public policy goal is to provide for the welfare of citizens that the government would otherwise have to provide. Giving a $5 bill to the homeless person on the corner is not recognized and you receive no government benefit for that; do you find that unfair? Is it discrimination?
Marriage is also an institution with a public policy goal of stability and responsibility. I think if you want to change the terms, you should be able to state how that goal is enhanced by that change. After all, we’re not really talking about the “right” to marry, are we? I think a good contract lawyer could take care of most of the rights and responsibilities inherent in a marriage. It’s the benefits that are being sought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A good contract lawyer can not take care of what needs to be the equal of marriage perks. The entire law in many states has to to be changed.

I know of a man who was dying in [protected] and his sister would not let his partner visit him at the hospital. Until the other brother stepped in, she protested that he was "gay", and the brother told her he would whip her in front of her husband and then whip her husband in front of the children, but the partner was going to visit. And he did visit.

We can't have situations like that that rob individuals of the rights that marriage provides consenting adults.

First of all, I think fairness is an issue. That the gov't selects one specific group to reward and refuses to award other couples or groups that provide the same benefits is unacceptable.
Numerous studies have shown advantages to having a stay-at-home parent for children. Having two wage earners and still having a stay-at-home parent is clearly an advantage. And those two wage earners are not supporting more with less. They have 2 wage earners for one family.
Whether the children are concieved naturally or through artificial means (or adopted) is not relevant and should not be a part of the decision as to who gets the gov't benefits. If anything, the gay couple would have to work to achieve children, whereas the straight couples have them by accident pretty often.

Exactly. A gay couple does have to go through several more hoops to achieve children, even to the extent that there are qualifications to be met for adoption that require proof of stability. The government need not add more encouragement to achieve that stability, unlike the more natural and often accidental addition to a more traditional household.
As for sanctioning of polygamy, I think that leads to more serious issues relative to the “benefits” of marriage. Would you require the first wife to agree before adding the second, or is it solely the husband’s choice? What happens to the estate built through the first marriage period that the first wife helped to create, is it shared three ways now? I think you’d find upon inspection that some of the 1400 +/- marriage “benefits” (I think at least some of the “benefits” are actually “responsibilities&#8221 may or may not fit other situations as well as those for which they were intended, and many are no doubt in direct conflict.

The question of whether it serves public policy is debatable with very little hard data to support either side. However, I would offer that in a reasonably free society that that standard is inappropriate. If you wish to deny someone the right to live as they wish then the onus is upon you to demonstrate it is detrimental to society - not simply that it lacks benefit.

As to sanctioning, the government has determined it is appropriate for it to oversee marriage. In a legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract between competent adults. What is currently being done for both gays and polygamists, the government is intentionally discriminating against them by not allowing these contracts. That is changing for same sex marriage, but the discrimination still exists. I would go back to my first statement and argue that it is the discrimination which must be shown to be necessary, not the discriminated against. Unless there is a clear and valid reason to refuse to allow these contracts, then they should be allowed. I don't believe the fact that some folks find it "icky" constitutes a valid reason.

I don't think I implied "ickiness" was in any way part of the discussion, and I find that remark somewhat offensive. I don't wish to deny anyone any freedom to live as they choose. I'm not anti-gay; I haven't really considered polygamy as within the confines of normal society, so haven't really given that much thought either way. However, the government often encourages behavior if it is within the boundaries it has set. We encourage homeownership with a tax deduction and government sponsored mortgage enterprises, but only if you buy a home and live in it. The public policy goal is more stable neighborhoods. Do you find that unfair to renters or those who own multiple houses? Is it discrimination?
We encourage charitable giving, but only if your donation is given to a recognized charitable organization. The public policy goal is to provide for the welfare of citizens that the government would otherwise have to provide. Giving a $5 bill to the homeless person on the corner is not recognized and you receive no government benefit for that; do you find that unfair? Is it discrimination?
Marriage is also an institution with a public policy goal of stability and responsibility. I think if you want to change the terms, you should be able to state how that goal is enhanced by that change. After all, we’re not really talking about the “right” to marry, are we? I think a good contract lawyer could take care of most of the rights and responsibilities inherent in a marriage. It’s the benefits that are being sought.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, I think fairness is an issue. That the gov't selects one specific group to reward and refuses to award other couples or groups that provide the same benefits is unacceptable.
Numerous studies have shown advantages to having a stay-at-home parent for children. Having two wage earners and still having a stay-at-home parent is clearly an advantage. And those two wage earners are not supporting more with less. They have 2 wage earners for one family.
Whether the children are concieved naturally or through artificial means (or adopted) is not relevant and should not be a part of the decision as to who gets the gov't benefits. If anything, the gay couple would have to work to achieve children, whereas the straight couples have them by accident pretty often.

Exactly. A gay couple does have to go through several more hoops to achieve children, even to the extent that there are qualifications to be met for adoption that require proof of stability. The government need not add more encouragement to achieve that stability, unlike the more natural and often accidental addition to a more traditional household.As for sanctioning of polygamy, I think that leads to more serious issues relative to the “benefits” of marriage. Would you require the first wife to agree before adding the second, or is it solely the husband’s choice? What happens to the estate built through the first marriage period that the first wife helped to create, is it shared three ways now? I think you’d find upon inspection that some of the 1400 +/- marriage “benefits” (I think at least some of the “benefits” are actually “responsibilities”) may or may not fit other situations as well as those for which they were intended, and many are no doubt in direct conflict.

The question of whether it serves public policy is debatable with very little hard data to support either side. However, I would offer that in a reasonably free society that that standard is inappropriate. If you wish to deny someone the right to live as they wish then the onus is upon you to demonstrate it is detrimental to society - not simply that it lacks benefit.

.

I am sorry to say that the this is nonsense. You are in effect saying that gays do not fit the criteria for getting the benefits of being a stable married couple because they had to prove they are a stable couple?

Bill Gates and his wife get the same benefits for being married. Do they need to be encouraged to be stable? The idea that all of the benefits given married couples are due to children is insane. But if that were true, why to sterile couples get teh same benefits?

 

[PratchettFan]

First of all, I think fairness is an issue. That the gov't selects one specific group to reward and refuses to award other couples or groups that provide the same benefits is unacceptable.
Numerous studies have shown advantages to having a stay-at-home parent for children. Having two wage earners and still having a stay-at-home parent is clearly an advantage. And those two wage earners are not supporting more with less. They have 2 wage earners for one family.
Whether the children are concieved naturally or through artificial means (or adopted) is not relevant and should not be a part of the decision as to who gets the gov't benefits. If anything, the gay couple would have to work to achieve children, whereas the straight couples have them by accident pretty often.

Exactly. A gay couple does have to go through several more hoops to achieve children, even to the extent that there are qualifications to be met for adoption that require proof of stability. The government need not add more encouragement to achieve that stability, unlike the more natural and often accidental addition to a more traditional household.
As for sanctioning of polygamy, I think that leads to more serious issues relative to the “benefits” of marriage. Would you require the first wife to agree before adding the second, or is it solely the husband’s choice? What happens to the estate built through the first marriage period that the first wife helped to create, is it shared three ways now? I think you’d find upon inspection that some of the 1400 +/- marriage “benefits” (I think at least some of the “benefits” are actually “responsibilities”) may or may not fit other situations as well as those for which they were intended, and many are no doubt in direct conflict.

The question of whether it serves public policy is debatable with very little hard data to support either side. However, I would offer that in a reasonably free society that that standard is inappropriate. If you wish to deny someone the right to live as they wish then the onus is upon you to demonstrate it is detrimental to society - not simply that it lacks benefit.

As to sanctioning, the government has determined it is appropriate for it to oversee marriage. In a legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract between competent adults. What is currently being done for both gays and polygamists, the government is intentionally discriminating against them by not allowing these contracts. That is changing for same sex marriage, but the discrimination still exists. I would go back to my first statement and argue that it is the discrimination which must be shown to be necessary, not the discriminated against. Unless there is a clear and valid reason to refuse to allow these contracts, then they should be allowed. I don't believe the fact that some folks find it "icky" constitutes a valid reason.

I don't think I implied "ickiness" was in any way part of the discussion, and I find that remark somewhat offensive. I don't wish to deny anyone any freedom to live as they choose. I'm not anti-gay; I haven't really considered polygamy as within the confines of normal society, so haven't really given that much thought either way. However, the government often encourages behavior if it is within the boundaries it has set. We encourage homeownership with a tax deduction and government sponsored mortgage enterprises, but only if you buy a home and live in it. The public policy goal is more stable neighborhoods. Do you find that unfair to renters or those who own multiple houses? Is it discrimination?
We encourage charitable giving, but only if your donation is given to a recognized charitable organization. The public policy goal is to provide for the welfare of citizens that the government would otherwise have to provide. Giving a $5 bill to the homeless person on the corner is not recognized and you receive no government benefit for that; do you find that unfair? Is it discrimination?
Marriage is also an institution with a public policy goal of stability and responsibility. I think if you want to change the terms, you should be able to state how that goal is enhanced by that change. After all, we’re not really talking about the “right” to marry, are we? I think a good contract lawyer could take care of most of the rights and responsibilities inherent in a marriage. It’s the benefits that are being sought.

The right to marry is precisely what we are talking about. This is about equal protection under the law.

So far you have provided no reason other than it provides no benefit - without any data to support this claim. You are free to be offended if you please, however to date the only reason I have actually heard on the subject is that people do not approve of the life style choice. It is icky. It is immoral. IOW, it is different than what they would choose. That is not a valid reason to deny someone this basic right.

The examples you provided have no relationship to this issue.

 

[Peach]

This is not about Mitt Romney.

We've accidentally found a show on TV called "Sister Wives" and ...

How do you feel about polygamy?

Include consideration of multiple husband/one wife, as well as multiple wives/one husband, consenting adults.

Why do you feel that way?

You do realize this is yet another "Obama born in Kenya" thread with some substitution of words, do you not?

 

[BillyV]

A good contract lawyer can not take care of what needs to be the equal of marriage perks. The entire law in many states has to to be changed.

I know of a man who was dying in [protected] and his sister would not let his partner visit him at the hospital. Until the other brother stepped in, she protested that he was "gay", and the brother told her he would whip her in front of her husband and then whip her husband in front of the children, but the partner was going to visit. And he did visit.

We can't have situations like that that rob individuals of the rights that marriage provides consenting adults.

The example you have given is a situation that has been corrected, without any change to marriage laws, and by the way, I agree with you that visitation rights should not be withheld to significant others regardless of family status or gender.

Hospital Visitation Rights for Gay, Lesbian Partners Take Effect - ABC News

 

[FA_Q2]

The question of whether it serves public policy is debatable with very little hard data to support either side. However, I would offer that in a reasonably free society that that standard is inappropriate. If you wish to deny someone the right to live as they wish then the onus is upon you to demonstrate it is detrimental to society - not simply that it lacks benefit.

.

I am sorry to say that the this is nonsense. You are in effect saying that gays do not fit the criteria for getting the benefits of being a stable married couple because they had to prove they are a stable couple?

Bill Gates and his wife get the same benefits for being married. Do they need to be encouraged to be stable? The idea that all of the benefits given married couples are due to children is insane. But if that were true, why to sterile couples get teh same benefits?

???
I got the EXACT opposite from that. Not to put words in his mouth, but I understood that the argument against gay marriage is often that there is no benefit to society in recognizing such a union but that was not a sufficient reason to deny anything. The onus would be on the other side, in order to deny such a benefit you would have to show it was actually detrimental to society to recognize such unions. Something that has yet to ever happen (or ever will).

The same standard could be applied to polygamy as well. On what grounds does one deny you the right to marry multiples?