CDZ What should we do with polygamy?

[Muhammed]

The mother of my first child passed away when our baby girl was less than a year old. I was so emotionally devastated by that loss that I didn't even date for over a year.

Then I came to my senses and realized that I needed to start dating again if I wanted a fulfilling social life. And I wanted my baby girl to have a sibling to play with in her childhood. I stopped using condoms because I wanted another child. Next thing you know, two young ladies were pregnant with my children. One of them with twins.

They both eventually moved into my house. At first it was rough. They didn't get along and fought all the time. Then one evening I came home from work and found them cuddled up in each others' arms on the living room couch. Later I found out that they made love with each other. After that, instead of alternating who I slept with, the three of us usually shared a bed.

I didn't marry either of them. I thought about it, but decided that I didn't want to rock the boat because it would likely create chaos in our household.

If I could have legally married both of them, I would have.

 

[lake avenue]

I really see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed so long as all parties involved consent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

lake avenue

I really see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed so long as all parties involved consent.

You do?

Do you know what the legal arguments against it were? I hope so because THAT is what you are arguing

 

[lake avenue]

lake avenue

I really see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed so long as all parties involved consent.

You do?

Do you know what the legal arguments against it were? I hope so because THAT is what you are arguing

No I don't know the legal arguments against it nor do I care much. Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue beyond state recognition.

 

[Agit8r]

I've always thought of polygamy as it's own punishment.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

No I don't know the legal arguments against it nor do I care much. Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue beyond state recognition.

Shouldn't? Anyway, it is.
And the main argument against polygamy is the same as against SSM. It kills the American family institution.

 

[rightwinger]

If it is between consenting adults, why should I care?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If it is between consenting adults, why should I care?

what do you say about the overriding state interest?

 

[Syriusly]

[QUOTE="Teddy Pollins, post: 11207554, member: 53707"
You must admit that all this legalization of homosexual marriages is to lead to allowing polygamy in the US.
[/QUOTE]

Why must I admit any such thing there is no evidence that it will?

 

[Syriusly]

No I don't know the legal arguments against it nor do I care much. Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue beyond state recognition.

Shouldn't? Anyway, it is.
And the main argument against polygamy is the same as against SSM. It kills the American family institution.

Okay- I am curious- as a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- how does two men marrying destroy my marriage?

 

[rightwinger]

If it is between consenting adults, why should I care?

what do you say about the overriding state interest?

What possible interest can the state have?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If it is between consenting adults, why should I care?

what do you say about the overriding state interest?

What possible interest can the state have?

Look up the law you would challenge. It is a legal argument you'd need, not an ideological or political one

 

[rightwinger]

If it is between consenting adults, why should I care?

what do you say about the overriding state interest?

What possible interest can the state have?

Look up the law you would challenge. It is a legal argument you'd need, not an ideological or political one

Legal argument of no harm, no foul

The state cannot prove any harm in consensual polygamy

 

[HenryBHough]

What in hell business is it of "society" if one has more than one spouse?

The only thing of which I can think is related to pension benefits. There'd need to be some provision for keeping "spousal benefits" from being multiplicative.

Many pension plans allow selection of benefits which die with the pensioner or which continue 2/3 payment to the surviving spouse. That would need to be defined, for example, as 2/3 payment divided among the surviving spouses. To do otherwise would be to encourage the premature death of pensioners at their own hands or those of the spouses who would be economic better off were 2/3 payment going to EACH.

I don't think there should be any tie to religion exerted by anyone other than the participants though because of the increasing number of diverse faiths, I would want to see "spousal benefits" restricted to actual humans. No goats, for example, eligible regardless of what anyone's religion might allow. But I guess that makes me a bigot?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If it is between consenting adults, why should I care?

what do you say about the overriding state interest?

What possible interest can the state have?

Look up the law you would challenge. It is a legal argument you'd need, not an ideological or political one

Legal argument of no harm, no foul

The state cannot prove any harm in consensual polygamy

I wonder. I don't know the arguments and folks who take your position do not address the laws on the books.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What in hell business is it of "society" if one has more than one spouse?

The only thing of which I can think is related to pension benefits. There'd need to be some provision for keeping "spousal benefits" from being multiplicative.

Many pension plans allow selection of benefits which die with the pensioner or which continue 2/3 payment to the surviving spouse. That would need to be defined, for example, as 2/3 payment divided among the surviving spouses. To do otherwise would be to encourage the premature death of pensioners at their own hands or those of the spouses who would be economic better off were 2/3 payment going to EACH.

I don't think there should be any tie to religion exerted by anyone other than the participants though because of the increasing number of diverse faiths, I would want to see "spousal benefits" restricted to actual humans. No goats, for example, eligible regardless of what anyone's religion might allow. But I guess that makes me a bigot?

what do you say about the overriding state interest? What possible interest can the state have?

Look up the law you would challenge. It is a legal argument you'd need, not an ideological or political one

I wonder. I don't know the arguments and folks who take your position do not address the laws on the books.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No I don't know the legal arguments against it nor do I care much. Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue beyond state recognition.

Shouldn't? Anyway, it is.
And the main argument against polygamy is the same as against SSM. It kills the American family institution.

really?

then you are terrible ignorant of the law.

As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it.

Reynolds v. United States 1878 - Bill of Rights Institute​

 

[HenryBHough]

Beyond doling out pensions what meaningful position could any state have? Remember, states aren't supposed to be promoting religions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I really see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed so long as all parties involved consent.

really?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Beyond doling out pensions what meaningful position could any state have? Remember, states aren't supposed to be promoting religions.

There are laws against polygamy. How are you challenging a law with a statement like that?