Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?

[PaintMyHouse]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

You again argue tradition?

That's absurd. That concept died yesterday.

You old or what?

Equality beat tradition yesterday, as it should have.

 

[Pop23]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

Name one other contract that MUST be between only two parties.

Your tradition argument remains absurd.

 

[Nosmo King]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

You again argue tradition?

That's absurd. That concept died yesterday.

You old or what?

No. I'm arguing the precepts of a contract designed to accommodate two adults as opposed to corporate and private contracts that can be designed to accommodate multiple parties.

Marriage provides specific protections and establishes specific identities. The next of kin relationship is exclusive to the marriage contract. It is not a provision of multiple party contracts.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

What an ignorant post? Are you not aware that the LDS have disavowed polygamy for more than a century!

Ignorance is not knowing how many bigamists live in Utah that are Mormon.

No the true ignorance is not knowing the difference between FLDS ( Warren Jeffs ) and mainstream LDS which does not support polygamy any longer...

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

" The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations[5][6] and one of the largest organizations in the United States whose members practice polygyny.[7] The FLDS Church emerged in the early twentieth century when its founding members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split occurred largely because of the LDS Church's suspension of the practice of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate its members who would continue the practice. "

From the firs link above...

 

[Nosmo King]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

Name one other contract that MUST be between only two parties.

Your tradition argument remains absurd.

There are no other contracts that provide for the inclusion of no more than two adults that establish a next of kin relationship.

The marriage contract was designed to do that. Two adults who are not next of kin to establish a legal entity where all the processions of each are now melded into the processions of the parties of the contract.

Polygamy is available through other forms of contract law. But establishing a next of kin relationship among all parties to such a contract will require legal gymnastics that are above my pay grade.

 

[hangover]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

What an ignorant post? Are you not aware that the LDS have disavowed polygamy for more than a century!

Ignorance is not knowing how many bigamists live in Utah that are Mormon.

No the true ignorance is not knowing the difference between FLDS ( Warren Jeffs ) and mainstream LDS which does not support polygamy any longer...

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

" The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations[5][6] and one of the largest organizations in the United States whose members practice polygyny.[7] The FLDS Church emerged in the early twentieth century when its founding members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split occurred largely because of the LDS Church's suspension of the practice of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate its members who would continue the practice. "

From the firs link above...

The Mormons officially disavow it, so they can be excepted by the GOP. Unofficially, they turn a blind eye to it. Their hero is STILL Joseph Smith, who had many wives. By the way, so did Solomon. Abraham had two wives. One of his wives created the Muslim religion. I think that's why christians banned polygamy.

 

[Pop23]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

You again argue tradition?

That's absurd. That concept died yesterday.

You old or what?

No. I'm arguing the precepts of a contract designed to accommodate two adults as opposed to corporate and private contracts that can be designed to accommodate multiple parties.

Marriage provides specific protections and establishes specific identities. The next of kin relationship is exclusive to the marriage contract. It is not a provision of multiple party contracts.

Nothing you state can't be accomplished under standard boilerplate

You want to argue tradition when you previously argued to abolish it.

Absurdity at its finest

 

[Wake]

Since America is a secular nation, polygamy should be legal, because it involves consenting adults, and it's not like they're hurting anyone.

As despicable as I find gay marriage to be, I'm not comfortable with so many on the political Right of things now bringing up polygamy as if it's a tool against the idea of gay marriage. Legal, polygamous marriage, and incest, and polyamory are all inevitable here. It is going to happen, it will happen, and regardless of whether or not gay marriage was legalize it is all only a matter of time.

 

[Skylar]

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

I speak practically. There are events that occur in polygamy that are impossible in 2 person marriage. For example: people entering and exiting the union at different times. That can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have no precedent in our marriage laws for one person to leave a union....but the other person to still be married. We don't have any precedent on division of property in such scenarios, if one person leaving dissolves the entire union or only the union between the people leaving and everyone else. We have no conditions for child support, spousal support, etc for multiple partners.

Our marriage laws can't answer these questions.....as in 2 person marriage the union starts and ends for both parties at the exact same time. Always. There's never a circumstance where one person exits a marriage while the other is still married within it. So no have no precedent in our marriage laws regarding such circumstances.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

Nope. A contract is defined exclusively by the participants. A marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. A personal contract is over whenever the participants say it is. A marriage is over when the state recognizes that it is. And in many states you must go through trial separations, full separations, and then divorce. You don't decide if you get to skip any of that. The courts do.

As marriage isn't defined by the individual. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no precedent to deal with the unique situations that occur in polygamy.

Funny how you rely on tradition.

Tradition is irrelevant. We just don't have the precedent in our marriage to deal with polygamy. We can't answer fundamental questions unique to polygamy with our marriage laws. As the situations involved are physically impossible in 2 person marriage.

While gay marriage works perfectly with all the same rules for 2 person marriage. All the same rules apply.

There is NOTHING UNIQUE about a multi partner marriage that can't be resolved by simple boilerplate contracts.

You're only demonstrating how different polygamy is from 2 person marriage. As 2 person marriage isn't defined by 'simple boilerplate contracts'. Its defined by society within the boundaries of individual rights. Society has a say on when a marriage begins, what the terms of the marriage are, what the distribution of resources after the marriage are, child custody, when marriages end, and what must be done in order to exit a marriage.

You've essentially conceded my point, admitting that polygamy would have to go outside legal precedent of our marriage laws. And demonstrated the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage laws and polygamy.

Marriage is simply a contract that bestows governmental benefits and allows for the combination of property.

No, it isn't. It such were the case then there would be no need for yesterday's. As anyone could enter into any contract they wish. But Marriage is far more than simply a contact. As it isn't defined by the particpants, but by society within the bounds of individual rights.

Where as simple contracts are defined exclusively by the participants.

You've already conceded that polygamy can't be resolved within our current marriage law. And that polygamy would have to go OUTSIDE our current marriage law to operate. Which demonstrates it fundamental incompatibility with marriage law. If it were compatible, you would'nt have to go outside marriage law to make polygamy work.

 

[Kondor3]

...Equality beat tradition yesterday, as it should have.

Alternative viewpoint: WIckedness beat Godliness yesterday, as it should not have.

 

[JoeMoma]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

You make good points; however, just as marriage can be changed so it is both same sex and opposite sex, it can also be changed to be also multiple partners. Not long ago marriage was an exclusive contract between opposite sex partners only. If that can change, other aspects about marriage can be changed to accommodate the rights of those than wish to marry.

 

[Skylar]

Since America is a secular nation, polygamy should be legal, because it involves consenting adults, and it's not like they're hurting anyone.

Its not matter of consent or hurting anyone. It a matter of our marriage laws being incompatible with it. There are unique situations in polygamy that cannot occur in 2 person marriage. And when these situations occur, we have no answer in our marriage laws for the questions that arise.

I certainly agree that polygamy shouldn't be criminalized on the basis you described. But plural marriage under our law is incompatible with our current body of marriage law precedent.

Gay marriage works fine under our current marriage laws, as all the same laws apply.

 

[Kondor3]

Butt-boys and polygamists and pigeon-fanciers and catamites and sodomites and all manner of filth better suited to the sewers than the open light of day...

 

[Wake]

Since America is a secular nation, polygamy should be legal, because it involves consenting adults, and it's not like they're hurting anyone.

Its not matter of consent or hurting anyone. It a matter of our marriage laws being incompatible with it. There are unique situations in polygamy that cannot occur in 2 person marriage. And when these situations occur, we have no answer in our marriage laws for the questions that arise.

I certainly agree that polygamy shouldn't be criminalized on the basis you described. But plural marriage under our law is incompatible with our current body of marriage law precedent.

Gay marriage works fine under our current marriage laws, as all the same laws apply.

As you know, there is always room for subversion for the 'evolution' of man-made laws.

Just as gay marriage was interpreted to be legal, so can those marriage I mentioned earlier. Marriage had been between one man and one woman; that was changed. Marriage has been between two people; that will change.

 

[Skylar]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

You make good points; however, just as marriage can be changed so it is both same sex and opposite sex, it can also be changed to be also multiple partners. Not long ago marriage was an exclusive contract between opposite sex partners only. If that can change, other aspects about marriage can be changed to accommodate the rights of those than wish to marry.

In same sex marraige the body of marriage law works beautifully. You just apply all the same rules. There's no incompatibility, no question in same sex marriage that our current marriage laws couldn't answer.

In the past when there was a vast disparity between the rights and privileges of men and women in marriage, there might have been incompatibility with same sex marriage. As even by the standards of disparity, same sex marriage would be a union of equals. But once marriage law became a union of equals for opposite sex couples, that incompatibility vanished. The moment marriage changed to make men and women equal partners.....same sex marriage was inevitable.

 

[Skylar]

Since America is a secular nation, polygamy should be legal, because it involves consenting adults, and it's not like they're hurting anyone.

Its not matter of consent or hurting anyone. It a matter of our marriage laws being incompatible with it. There are unique situations in polygamy that cannot occur in 2 person marriage. And when these situations occur, we have no answer in our marriage laws for the questions that arise.

I certainly agree that polygamy shouldn't be criminalized on the basis you described. But plural marriage under our law is incompatible with our current body of marriage law precedent.

Gay marriage works fine under our current marriage laws, as all the same laws apply.

As you know, there is always room for subversion for the 'evolution' of man-made laws.

Just as gay marriage was interpreted to be legal, so can those marriage I mentioned earlier. Marriage had been between one man and one woman; that was changed. Marriage has been between two people; that will change.

Oh, we can absolutely create precedent for the unique circumstances of polygamy that don't exist in 2 person marriage. It might take decades, but its entirely possible. I'm merely pointing out that the fundamental incompatibility with polygamy and our marriage laws would be more than ample justification in not recognizing plural marriages under the law.

Where with same sex marriage there has been no inherent incompatibility since men and women were treated equally under marriage law. And all the same rules apply to same sex couples as with hetero couples. There's no question our current marriage law couldn't answer in a same sex union.

There are questions our current marriage law couldn't answer regarding polygamy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Since America is a secular nation, polygamy should be legal, because it involves consenting adults, and it's not like they're hurting anyone.

Its not matter of consent or hurting anyone. It a matter of our marriage laws being incompatible with it. There are unique situations in polygamy that cannot occur in 2 person marriage. And when these situations occur, we have no answer in our marriage laws for the questions that arise.

I certainly agree that polygamy shouldn't be criminalized on the basis you described. But plural marriage under our law is incompatible with our current body of marriage law precedent.

Gay marriage works fine under our current marriage laws, as all the same laws apply.

As you know, there is always room for subversion for the 'evolution' of man-made laws.

Just as gay marriage was interpreted to be legal, so can those marriage I mentioned earlier. Marriage had been between one man and one woman; that was changed. Marriage has been between two people; that will change.

Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

What an ignorant post? Are you not aware that the LDS have disavowed polygamy for more than a century!

Ignorance is not knowing how many bigamists live in Utah that are Mormon.

No the true ignorance is not knowing the difference between FLDS ( Warren Jeffs ) and mainstream LDS which does not support polygamy any longer...

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

" The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations[5][6] and one of the largest organizations in the United States whose members practice polygyny.[7] The FLDS Church emerged in the early twentieth century when its founding members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split occurred largely because of the LDS Church's suspension of the practice of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate its members who would continue the practice. "

From the firs link above...

The Mormons officially disavow it, so they can be excepted by the GOP. Unofficially, they turn a blind eye to it. Their hero is STILL Joseph Smith, who had many wives. By the way, so did Solomon. Abraham had two wives. One of his wives created the Muslim religion. I think that's why christians banned polygamy.

Abraham technically had only one wife named Sarah and Hagar was a concubine and to my understanding never a wife. It is like taking on a mistress because your wife is barren and that is what Hagar was with Sarah permission.

So even though polygamy was part of the general society of Abraham day and having more than one wife or having a concubine was the norm the fact is when you actually read Abraham story he was wed to Sarah.

Jacob practice polygamy and had many wives...

As for why Christians banned the practice might have more to do with the Roman society of the day and less to do with Muslims seeing Islam was a five hundred years after Christ.

Here is a link about Polygamy:

Polygamy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Bonus:

Can anyone name Adam first wife?

 

[Wake]

Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.

The bolded do not apply.

They are also not equal to homosexuality.

 

[Skylar]

Since America is a secular nation, polygamy should be legal, because it involves consenting adults, and it's not like they're hurting anyone.

Its not matter of consent or hurting anyone. It a matter of our marriage laws being incompatible with it. There are unique situations in polygamy that cannot occur in 2 person marriage. And when these situations occur, we have no answer in our marriage laws for the questions that arise.

I certainly agree that polygamy shouldn't be criminalized on the basis you described. But plural marriage under our law is incompatible with our current body of marriage law precedent.

Gay marriage works fine under our current marriage laws, as all the same laws apply.

As you know, there is always room for subversion for the 'evolution' of man-made laws.

Just as gay marriage was interpreted to be legal, so can those marriage I mentioned earlier. Marriage had been between one man and one woman; that was changed. Marriage has been between two people; that will change.

Yup. One can logically argue rights for any variety of "deviance as part of natural human programming" following this decision. I suspect they will all gain their particular lobbyists, and many will be successful. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and silicon dolls are all in the pipeline now.

I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about. And 'deviance as part of natural human programming". Gee....that sounds awfully familar from a new poster. Almost exactly the words of an old poster.