The Polygamy Scandal

[Marx]

I'm sitting here watching Larry King Live, as I often do, and they are disussing the polygamy scandal. As you may or may not know, a few hundred children have been removed from a polygamy compound due to abuse accusations in Texas and the state is currently seeking custody of those children.

I feel so bad for all of the kids involved in this mess. Watching this group of women from the sect speak on tv...they are dressed like they live in the 1800's, are very soft spoken, and generally seem brainwashed, spacey, and withdrawn. They continue to avoid questions like "where is your husband" and keep repeating "our focus is on the children." I can't imagine what this situation has brought upon all involved, but this isn't right. I've heard rumors about there only being five husbands for the whole sect, which blows my mind. I just can't believe something like this hasn't been stopped before now. There are laws against polygamy, yet all of these "adults" continued on as nothing was wrong.

My only hope is that this situation has brought a renewed awareness and will greatly strengthen the laws (or create new ones) so that something like this will never happen again. It may be a fool's hope, but this situation is ridicuous!

I just don't understand how people can think this is normal!?!?!?!

[The Senator]

You know, really, I don't see what the difference is between Warren Jeffs and the Fundamental Church of Latter-Day Saints, and Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic church. Both organizations abuse children, both church's leaders have supported such acts (or at least, Cardinal Ratzinger told the Catholic Church to remain silent in regards to these acts when he worked under John Paul II). It seems like everyone is criticizing Jeffs and his supporters, while the Pope is getting a huge birthday extravaganza in our nation's capitol.

[Marx]

It's just disgusting Jman. I just cannot comprehend how this can be seen as normal. These men have married girls as young as 15 years old! The Catholic church scandal is another thing that really unnerves me.

[Gilpesh]

Hey Marx... don't read a history book then.

[The Senator]

It's just disgusting Jman. I just cannot comprehend how this can be seen as normal. These men have married girls as young as 15 years old! The Catholic church scandal is another thing that really unnerves me.

Again, it's disgusting when these guys marry fifteen year old girls, but a priest abusing a twelve-year-old altar boy is anything but shocking these days. Hell, the man who told the entire Catholic church to keep the scandal behind closed doors received a parade and a fancy White House ceremony this week (not to mention he got to stall traffic in the city which has some of the worst traffic in America). Shouldn't we do the same to Warren Jeffs? After all, when you look at the amount of children he abused versus the amount of children abused under the Catholic church, it's incomparable. You're talking a hundred or so girls versus tens of thousands of boys over the past decade.

[Marx]

Hey Marx... don't read a history book then.

I have read hundreds of history books Gilpesh. It still doesn't make this any less sickening.

Again, it's disgusting when these guys marry fifteen year old girls, but a priest abusing a twelve-year-old altar boy is anything but shocking these days. Hell, the man who told the entire Catholic church to keep the scandal behind closed doors received a parade and a fancy White House ceremony this week (not to mention he got to stall traffic in the city which has some of the worst traffic in America). Shouldn't we do the same to Warren Jeffs? After all, when you look at the amount of children he abused versus the amount of children abused under the Catholic church, it's incomparable. You're talking a hundred or so girls versus tens of thousands of boys over the past decade.

I find that just as disturbing.

[Gilpesh]

I have read hundreds of history books Gilpesh. It still doesn't make this any less sickening.

So the whole, marriage at fifteen thing in the past... doesn't bother you?

[Marx]

So the whole, marriage at fifteen thing in the past... doesn't bother you?

Did I miss the part where I must have said that that didn't bother me? :huh:

[Gilpesh]

Did I miss the part where I must have said that that didn't bother me? :huh:

So you thought it appalling that in earlier ages, women married much younger than they do now?

[Marx]

So you thought it appalling that in earlier ages, women married much younger than they do now?

Yes I do. I don't believe that children should be getting married. What exactly are you trying to get at?

[The Senator]

Yes I do. I don't believe that children should be getting married. What exactly are you trying to get at?

Children shouldn't get married. Nor should they be abused, or forced into a faith they don't want to follow. But this sort of thing happens all the time.

[Marx]

Children shouldn't get married. Nor should they be abused, or forced into a faith they don't want to follow. But this sort of thing happens all the time.

Which still doesn't make it acceptable in any way.

[Gilpesh]

Yes I do. I don't believe that children should be getting married. What exactly are you trying to get at?

Yeah children should not get married. Although the prolonged childhood of today is a new occurrence relatively speaking.

[The Senator]

Which still doesn't make it acceptable in any way.

Right. Yet, these churches have no problems speaking out against contraception, abortion and homosexuals, yet they partake in some of the most horrendous behavior.

[Marx]

Right. Yet, these churches have no problems speaking out against contraception, abortion and homosexuals, yet they partake in some of the most horrendous behavior.

And that's why I do not attend church. (That and being ridiculed in front of one the last time I was there for a service.) I strongly believe that you do not have to attend church to be religious or have faith.

[The Senator]

And that's why I do not attend church. (That and being ridiculed in front of one the last time I was there.) I strongly believe that you do not have to attend church to be religious or have faith.

I'm also sure the Bible speaks out against breaking into denominations... which the Catholic church was the first to ignore...

[StorminNorman]

I have not followed this story closely, but did the children removed not enjoy the life they were living? Or was it simply a case of the government coming in and taking children from a way of life they GOVERNMENT did not enjoy?

[Marx]

I have not followed this story closely, but did the children removed not enjoy the life they were living? Or was it simply a case of the government coming in and taking children from a way of life they GOVERNMENT did not enjoy?

The government was said to be contacted by a girl that was about 15 and was being forced to get married. (Which then led to the investigation and raid.)

[StorminNorman]

The government was said to be contacted by a girl that was about 15 and was being forced to get married. (Which then led to the investigation and raid.)

Okay, that makes me feel a bit better.

If the children were happy with the living situation - I would of had a very, very strong problem with this situation.

That being said - polygamy should be made legal. Marrying 15 year old girls away should not.

[Marx]

Okay, that makes me feel a bit better.

If the children were happy with the living situation - I would of had a very, very strong problem with this situation.

That being said - polygamy should be made legal. Marrying 15 year old girls away should not.

You think it should be legal Norm? Why? Don't you find it disturbing that a man marries as many women as he wants and could have upwards of a hundred children? You don't see anything wrong with that?

[Gilpesh]

You think it should be legal Norm? Why? Don't you find it disturbing that a man marries as many women as he wants and could have upwards of a hundred children? You don't see anything wrong with that?

That's the definition of overreaction if I've ever seen it.

[StorminNorman]

You think it should be legal Norm? Why? Don't you find it disturbing that a man marries as many women as he wants and could have upwards of a hundred children? You don't see anything wrong with that?

Not at all. If the women consent, and the man consents - more power to them. How is it any different than single parent homes?

Its not a choice I would make, but I wouldn't chose to have a man stick his thingy in my pooper.

[Marx]

That's the definition of overreaction if I've ever seen it.

Overreaction??? I am asking Norm a simple question as to why he thinks what he does. You seem to enjoy making arguments Gilpesh.

[SuperFerret]

You think it should be legal Norm? Why? Don't you find it disturbing that a man marries as many women as he wants and could have upwards of a hundred children? You don't see anything wrong with that?

Proliferation of the species, man. As long as it's between consenting adults, whatever happens behind closed doors is none of anyone's business.

[Gilpesh]

Overreaction??? I am asking Norm a simple question as to why he thinks what he does. You seem to enjoy making arguments Gilpesh.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thought that was a message posted on a public board that anyone can respond to. I didn't know suddenly I have the power to read PMs...



But you did ask a loaded question that pushed your opinion of polygamy. You used the word disturbing in your question, implying that it was.

[marcofthebeast]

I agree with StorminNorman and Superferret.

Polygamy is not the problem here, child abuse is. A man/woman should be able to have as many partners, husbands or wives they want. I see no harm as long as everyone is in agreement of the type of relationship they are involved in.

[Marx]

Not at all. If the women consent, and the man consents - more power to them. How is it any different than single parent homes?

Its not a choice I would make, but I wouldn't chose to have a man stick his thingy in my pooper.

I've never thought of it that way Norm. I just find it disturbing that people will try anything and it's in the name of God. Or it's in God's law.

[StorminNorman]

I've never thought of it that way Norm. I just find it disturbing that people will try anything and it's in the name of God. Or it's in God's law.

See, I don;t look at it as a religious thing. Some will see it that way, but its not for me to judge how one practices and lives out their religion. As long as it is not messing with others - more power to them.

[Marx]

Proliferation of the species, man. As long as it's between consenting adults, whatever happens behind closed doors is none of anyone's business.

I mean you guys do have a point. I guess I've never thought of it this way. My main problem lies in the child abuse accusations.



Oh, I'm sorry. Thought that was a message posted on a public board that anyone can respond to. I didn't know suddenly I have the power to read PMs...



But you did ask a loaded question that pushed your opinion of polygamy. You used the word disturbing in your question, implying that it was.

I don't appreciate your trying to pick a fight. How about we stick to the topic at hand and stop throwing pointless comments out that have nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation? http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

See, I don;t look at it as a religious thing. Some will see it that way, but its not for me to judge how one practices and lives out their religion. As long as it is not messing with others - more power to them.

I'm not trying to judge. I'm really not. I just find it disgusting how some people twist religion and faith into ways that it was not intended. You know?

[StorminNorman]

I'm not trying to judge. I'm really not. I just find it disgusting how some people twist religion and faith into ways that it was not intended. You know?

Always, but Monogamy does not hold a monopoly on that. Sadly.

[The Senator]

That being said - polygamy should be made legal. Marrying 15 year old girls away should not.

At the very least, laws which make polygamy illegal should be removed from the record. As long as all parties involved consent to the arrangement, the government doesn't have any business telling two or more adults who they can love and how they can love them.

[Marx]

Hearing for children at polygamist retreat grinds to a halt
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

[The Lizard]

The thing that I find amusing about this situation is how the mainstream Mormon church distances itself from the activities of these people as if there is no link whatsoever.

While it's true that the main LDS church gave up polygamy in the 1890s, would there honestly be these issues still going on today if they had never done it in the first place?

[Marx]

The thing that I find amusing about this situation is how the mainstream Mormon church distances itself from the activities of these people as if there is no link whatsoever.

While it's true that the main LDS church gave up polygamy in the 1890s, would there honestly be these issues still going on today if they had never done it in the first place?

The thing that bothers me is also the fact that these people twist faith and religion into this mess. They believe that it's only through polygamy that you can get to the "highest levels of heaven." So they manipulate these women and children.

I also find it laughable that mainstream Mormonism is trying so desperately to act as if this is a foreign concept to them. Ultimately, I think this religion cost Mitt Romney the nomination. People just weren't comfortable with it.

[Marx]

Here are several articles about the case in Texas, as well as a story about a former sect member who escaped.


Throughout all of this, we have yet to hear FROM THE MEN involved in this. They instead, seem to be hiding behind the women.



Ex-sect members escape polygamy, but not pain
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polygamy.escapes/index.html

State "now a danger" to children, sect mothers say
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/15/sect.mothers/index.html?iref=newssearch

Rangers talk with polygamist ranch suspect
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/12/polygamy.suspect/index.html

Women return to Texas polygamist ranch
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/14/polygamy.retreat/index.html?iref=newssearch

[EdRyder]

The government was said to be contacted by a girl that was about 15 and was being forced to get married. (Which then led to the investigation and raid.)

That part bugged me from the jump.The police receive a phone call from a 15 y/o girl who alleges that she was forced into this lifestyle.And that prompts tptb to take 400 children into custody?And even after they have them, they cannot identify the caller?
And now they're discussing what to do with these children?As if returning the children wasnt the first thing that jumped in their heads when they have no case to speak of...
Its beyond odd,its totally suspect.

[Marx]

That part bugged me from the jump.The police receive a phone call from a 15 y/o girl who alleges that she was forced into this lifestyle.And that prompts tptb to take 400 children into custody?And even after they have them, they cannot identify the caller?
And now they're discussing what to do with these children?As if returning the children wasnt the first thing that jumped in their heads when they have no case to speak of...
Its beyond odd,its totally suspect.

I tend to think there was a little more behind it than that too Ed. There had to be something more for the raid to take place and the following removal of over 400 children.

[danoyse]

That part bugged me from the jump.The police receive a phone call from a 15 y/o girl who alleges that she was forced into this lifestyle.And that prompts tptb to take 400 children into custody?And even after they have them, they cannot identify the caller?
And now they're discussing what to do with these children?As if returning the children wasnt the first thing that jumped in their heads when they have no case to speak of...
Its beyond odd,its totally suspect.

It was a 16-year-old girl, and she allegedly called a family violence center to report that she was being beaten by her 50-year-old husband. She had one child and was pregnant with a second, and said that one of the man's 6 wives would hold her baby while she was being beaten.

I'm not sure how many times she called, but by the end she apparently started denying it all and told them not to come. They used probable cause to raid the compound. The girl had used the name Sarah Barlow, which is apparently the name a lot of women go by, and since she's not coming forward, they can't find her.

I thinks she exists, but she's too scared to turn herself in.

The fact is that among the 416 children, they have a number of teenage pregnant girls. Their mothers immediately change the subject whenever they are asked how young they marry, which to me says that it's true they're getting married as young as 13.

I don't care about the polygamy. If it's their way, they should be allowed to marry as many times as they want. But I can't stand looking at these little girls and thinking how they'll be used as teenage baby machines in a few years, and I can't stand thinking that the boys are going to be raised thinking something like that is OK to do.

That is abuse, and these kids shouldn't be condemned to it.

[Addendum]

Throughout all of this, we have yet to hear FROM THE MEN involved in this. They instead, seem to be hiding behind the women.


That would require something called balls

[Marx]

That would require something called balls

They have no problem manipulating and controlling the women and children in their community. I guess they can't actually stand up for themselves once they are painted in a negative light outside the community. It's sickening.

[The Senator]

Again, I thought sexually molesting children was illegal as well. Why hasn't the federal government raided every Catholic church in the country to hunt down and capture those priests who have sexually abused their altar boys? Why wasn't Pope Benedict XVI arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of endangering the welfare of a child, when he told the Catholic church to remain silent on the sexual abuse scandal back when he was working under John Paul II?

The Mormons are freaky and weird because a few of them like multiple wives. But, hey, the Catholics have tens of millions of followers worldwide, so I guess its acceptable.

[danoyse]

Again, I thought sexually molesting children was illegal as well. Why hasn't the federal government raided every Catholic church in the country to hunt down and capture those priests who have sexually abused their altar boys? Why wasn't Pope Benedict XVI arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of endangering the welfare of a child, when he told the Catholic church to remain silent on the sexual abuse scandal back when he was working under John Paul II?

The Mormons are freaky and weird because a few of them like multiple wives. But, hey, the Catholics have tens of millions of followers worldwide, so I guess its acceptable.

Well, they're all too busy being angry at Bill Maher for saying the exact same thing on his show last week.

And you're absolutely right.

[The Senator]

Well, they're all too busy being angry at Bill Maher for saying the exact same thing on his show last week.

And you're absolutely right.

I thought I cited him, which obviously isn't the case now that I look back, but yes, Bill Maher is the one who presented the argument first, and I agree with it wholeheartedly as you can tell.

[Marx]

Investigator found polygamist ranch "scary"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/17/polygamy.custody/index.html

[Lightning Strykez!]

These women look gross. Especially their "Little House On The Prairie" hair-dos.

One of them has a uni-brow. Seeing it makes me feel sad inside my heart. :(

[The Senator]

These women look gross. Especially their "Little House On The Prairie" hair-dos.

One of them has a uni-brow. Seeing it makes me feel sad inside my heart. :(

I can't be too sure of this, but in an article I read about Warren Jeffs and his Fundamentalist Church, many children in these polygamist compounds are the result of incestuous relationships. That may explain the ugliness.

[YsoSerious]

It's freaky-reminds me of The Village.

[tzarinna]

Apparently the living conditions were pretty poor and the kids were suffering health problems due to it.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I'm sitting here watching Larry King Live, as I often do, and they are disussing the polygamy scandal. As you may or may not know, a few hundred children have been removed from a polygamy compound due to abuse accusations in Texas and the state is currently seeking custody of those children.

I feel so bad for all of the kids involved in this mess. Watching this group of women from the sect speak on tv...they are dressed like they live in the 1800's, are very soft spoken, and generally seem brainwashed, spacey, and withdrawn. They continue to avoid questions like "where is your husband" and keep repeating "our focus is on the children."

I just don't understand how people can think this is normal!?!?!?!

It is normal to some. There is a reason why people still live like that,they think things are now corrupt so they go back to a more simple life style. It's not just the 1800's they dress and act like people from 1920's and before.

[Marx]

It is normal to some. There is a reason why people still live like that,they think things are now corrupt so they go back to a more simple life style. It's not just the 1800's they dress and act like people from 1920's and before.

That culture is based on the men manipulating the women and children in the name of God. I just saw another interview with some of the women from the sect. (This was different from Larry King Live.) These women flat out said that they listen and give in to these men because they are led to believe that that is the only way to get into the highest levels of Heaven. These men, the women said, will be "kings in Heaven and they are the jewels in their crown." (Hence the reason for the coloring of their dresses.) But they also conceded that they believe they will only get into Heaven if the men invite them in. That's not normal. It's sick, twisted, and ridiculous. Not to mention, incredibly sad Arkady.

[danoyse]

It is normal to some. There is a reason why people still live like that,they think things are now corrupt so they go back to a more simple life style. It's not just the 1800's they dress and act like people from 1920's and before.

It's not as simple as that. These girls are being raised to believe that everything outside the walls they live in is corrupt and eternal damnation will befall them if they cut their hair or wear pants or even think of leaving. They're taught that it's perfectly fine to be married and having babies at 14.

It's even difficult to put the children in foster care because they've been taught to fear everything about the outside world that putting them in a regular home could be a disaster.

Listening to them on TV, it's like listening to a first-grade class reciting the alphabet. They don't understand anything. That's not a lifestyle, that's pure manipulation, and it's terrible abuse.

[The Major]

Again, I thought sexually molesting children was illegal as well. Why hasn't the federal government raided every Catholic church in the country to hunt down and capture those priests who have sexually abused their altar boys? Why wasn't Pope Benedict XVI arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of endangering the welfare of a child, when he told the Catholic church to remain silent on the sexual abuse scandal back when he was working under John Paul II?

The Mormons are freaky and weird because a few of them like multiple wives. But, hey, the Catholics have tens of millions of followers worldwide, so I guess its acceptable.

The Pope probably has diplomatic immunity, The Vatican has its own military, I'm sure it's a rich nation on top of that and America is full of Catholics.

[Kelly]

I'm sitting here watching Larry King Live, as I often do, and they are disussing the polygamy scandal. As you may or may not know, a few hundred children have been removed from a polygamy compound due to abuse accusations in Texas and the state is currently seeking custody of those children.

I feel so bad for all of the kids involved in this mess. Watching this group of women from the sect speak on tv...they are dressed like they live in the 1800's, are very soft spoken, and generally seem brainwashed, spacey, and withdrawn. They continue to avoid questions like "where is your husband" and keep repeating "our focus is on the children." I can't imagine what this situation has brought upon all involved, but this isn't right. I've heard rumors about there only being five husbands for the whole sect, which blows my mind. I just can't believe something like this hasn't been stopped before now. There are laws against polygamy, yet all of these "adults" continued on as nothing was wrong.

My only hope is that this situation has brought a renewed awareness and will greatly strengthen the laws (or create new ones) so that something like this will never happen again. It may be a fool's hope, but this situation is ridicuous!

I just don't understand how people can think this is normal!?!?!?!

Do you have an idea of what changes you would like made? Or what new laws you would like set in place?

[Marx]

Do you have an idea of what changes you would like made? Or what new laws you would like set in place?

I'm not really sure Kel. Something needs to be done though. Polygamy is illegal. It should be enforced, for starters. These men marry children (against their will) at ages as young as 13, who then become pregnant. It's disgusting. The only problem with filing rape charges against these idiots is that all of these women are so brainwashed that they lie to authorities. They cover for these men instead.

[Kelly]

I'm not really sure Kel. Something needs to be done though. Polygamy is illegal. It should be enforced, for starters. These men marry children (against their will) at ages as young as 13, who then become pregnant. It's disgusting. The only problem with filing rape charges against these idiots is that all of these women are so brainwashed that they lie to authorities. They cover for these men instead.


That is definitely a start.....


Not necessarily, if the girl is under the age of 18, doesn't matter if she said ok, or not.....its rape. The problem with these types of cases is, who raped who.......just like, what child belongs to what mom.........

[The Major]

I'm not really sure Kel. Something needs to be done though. Polygamy is illegal. It should be enforced, for starters. These men marry children (against their will) at ages as young as 13, who then become pregnant. It's disgusting. The only problem with filing rape charges against these idiots is that all of these women are so brainwashed that they lie to authorities. They cover for these men instead.

What exactly does the government do with brainwashed cases?

Could they legally rehabiliate the women who are brainwashed?

If they could manage to do this they'd get the women out of the cult's control at least for a little while and the men would have no choice but to speak up.

[The Senator]

I'm not really sure Kel. Something needs to be done though. Polygamy is illegal. It should be enforced, for starters.

I disagree. As long as the relationship is consensual, I see nothing wrong with it. They should enforce age limits on marriage instead.

These men marry children (against their will) at ages as young as 13, who then become pregnant. It's disgusting. The only problem with filing rape charges against these idiots is that all of these women are so brainwashed that they lie to authorities. They cover for these men instead.

How can you charge them with rape, though? They consent to maintaining a sexual relationship with these men, unfortunately. And while we're at it, what's to say all those men are conspiring to subdue these women? Not all of them are brainwashing these girls... some of these men have been brainwashed themselves...

[Marx]

That is definitely a start.....


Not necessarily, if the girl is under the age of 18, doesn't matter if she said ok, or not.....its rape. The problem with these types of cases is, who raped who.......just like, what child belongs to what mom.........

I completely understand and agree with that. What I'm saying though, is that regardless of who it is, these women deny anything and everything. (Except for the rare few, like the girl who called the authorities this time.)

[Marx]

I disagree. As long as the relationship is consensual, I see nothing wrong with it. They should enforce age limits on marriage instead.



How can you charge them with rape, though? They consent to maintaining a sexual relationship with these men, unfortunately. And while we're at it, what's to say all them men are conspiring to subdue these women? Not all of them are brainwashing these girls... some of these men have been brainwashed themselves...

Our law states that anyone underage, whether there is consent or not, is rape.

[Kelly]

What exactly does the government do with brainwashed cases?

Could they legally rehabiliate someone who was brainwashed by arresting them?

If they could manage to do this they'd get the women out of the cult's control at least for a little while and the men would have no choice but to speak up.


As far as the adult women are concerned, they could probably arrest them for withholding evidence, or screwing up the investigation.......but in this case.....there is so damn many of them, its a ridiculous predicament. The girls and boys under 18, were not sent back.....that are in the custody of the state right now.........I have a feeling that is where the states case will be built. They won't build one with the adult women. They will build it with the children, once they get them into homes where they have a chance to breath on their own.......and then of course it will be built by the testimony of those that have left the cult as well.

[The Major]

I disagree. As long as the relationship is consensual, I see nothing wrong with it. They should enforce age limits on marriage instead.



How can you charge them with rape, though? They consent to maintaining a sexual relationship with these men, unfortunately. And while we're at it, what's to say all those men are conspiring to subdue these women? Not all of them are brainwashing these girls... some of these men have been brainwashed themselves...

I don't think it's as simple as that. The girls are conditioned to consent form birth. It's the ultimate guilt trip. Marry him or you will go to hell.

Any girl under the age of 16 or 17, forgot Texas's legal age, is instant statutory rape by law.

Plus the men can't marry more then one girl anyway. That's bigamy which they can be charged with.

[The Major]

I disagree. As long as the relationship is consensual, I see nothing wrong with it. They should enforce age limits on marriage instead.

I don't think it's as simple as that. The girls are conditioned to consent form birth. It's the ultimate guilt trip. Marry him or you will go to hell.


How can you charge them with rape, though? They consent to maintaining a sexual relationship with these men, unfortunately. And while we're at it, what's to say all those men are conspiring to subdue these women? Not all of them are brainwashing these girls... some of these men have been brainwashed themselves...

Any girl under the age of 16 or 17, forgot Texas's legal age, is instant statutory rape by law.

Plus the men can't marry more then one girl anyway. That's bigamy which they can be charged with.

[The Senator]

Our law states that anyone underage, whether there is consent or not, is rape.

Yeah but there have been cases where the punishment has been minimized... this may very well be a similar case... after all, it is a part of their religion...

[The Major]

As far as the adult women are concerned, they could probably arrest them for withholding evidence, or screwing up the investigation.......but in this case.....there is so damn many of them, its a ridiculous predicament. The girls and boys under 18, were not sent back.....that are in the custody of the state right now.........I have a feeling that is where the states case will be built. They won't build one with the adult women. They will build it with the children, once they get them into homes where they have a chance to breath on their own.......and then of course it will be built by the testimony of those that have left the cult as well.

Okay.

Thanks for clearing that up. :D

[The Major]

Yeah but there have been cases where the punishment has been minimized... this may very well be a similar case... after all, it is a part of their religion...

Rape is still rape, religion or not.

I really hope that defense doesn't work.

[Kelly]

Yeah but there have been cases where the punishment has been minimized... this may very well be a similar case... after all, it is a part of their religion...


I don't believe this will fall under religious freedom.......


1. Allowing them to educate their children, etc......can fall under religious freedom...

2. Living on their own land, and the tax laws that all of that falls under.....can fall under religions.....etc....

3. Having sex with a 14 year old, and marrying more than one woman.....will not fall under religious freedoms.....

[Marx]

Yeah but there have been cases where the punishment has been minimized... this may very well be a similar case... after all, it is a part of their religion...

I don't believe that that is taken into consideration. Nor should it be, in my opinion. That could set a ridiculous precedent.

[The Senator]

I don't think it's as simple as that. The girls are conditioned to consent form birth. It's the ultimate guilt trip. Marry him or you will go to hell.

And how do you charge someone when that's the case? Most of these people are under the impression that it's right because some nutjob told them it is. And again, there are some men who are brainwashed themselves... there were over 500 people on that compound, if I remember correctly... tell me this hasn't been experienced on both sides...



Any girl under the age of 16 or 17, forgot Texas's legal age, is instant statutory rape by law.

Again, there have been cases where this has not been upheld... or at least, the punishment is minimal... this would tough to do because you have to prove these men haven't been brainwashed themselves... that they are manipulating these girls in the process...


Plus the men can't marry more then one girl anyway. That's bigamy which they can be charged with.

Think about that for a second... these compounds have their own laws... what's to say their own laws don't trump Texas's laws? Yeah, Texas's laws are the laws which will ultimately prevail, but what's to say they didn't live under their own set of laws on this compound? Polygamy still existed there... whether it was legal under Texas law or not...

[The Senator]

Rape is still rape, religion or not.

I really hope that defense doesn't work.

Well, it has worked in the past, not just on religious cases but on other cases as well... so who knows...

[Marx]

Well, it has worked in the past, not just on religious cases but on other cases as well... so who knows...

But it shouldn't. Anyone could claim that their actions are the result of God's word. Rape, murder, theft, etc.

[The Senator]

I don't believe that that is taken into consideration. Nor should it be, in my opinion. That could set a ridiculous precedent.

Yeah, because the government should control how people live their consensual sex lives...

little girls shouldn't be raped or forced into a relationship. But you're saying their religion doesn't matter, that polygamy is a vile disgusting thing, when in fact people should have as much right to enter a consensual relationship as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process... should these girls have been forced into a relationship?... no... but I don't think all of them were forced, I don't think all the men are guilty of being manipulators... there has to be a few who were brainwashed themselves... maybe the government should stop discriminating based on sexual preference?

[Marx]

Yeah, because the government should control how people live their consensual sex lives...

little girls shouldn't be raped or forced into a relationship. But you're saying their religion doesn't matter, that polygamy is a vile disgusting thing, when in fact people should have as much right to enter a consensual relationship as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process... should these girls have been forced into a relationship?... no... but I don't think all of them were forced, I don't think all the men are guilty of being manipulators... there has to be a few who were brainwashed themselves... maybe the government should stop discriminating based on sexual preference?

I'm not talking about sexual preference. (Although I am a strong advocate for equal rights.) What I am saying is that under the age of 18, whether there is consent or not, by law it is statutory rape. That's just the way it is. Religion or not.

[Kelly]

And how do you charge someone when that's the case? Most of these people are under the impression that it's right because some nutjob told them it is. And again, there are some men who are brainwashed themselves... there were over 500 people on that compound, if I remember correctly... tell me this hasn't been experienced on both sides...




Again, there have been cases where this has not been upheld... or at least, the punishment is minimal... this would tough to do because you have to prove these men haven't been brainwashed themselves... that they are manipulating these girls in the process...



Think about that for a second... these compounds have their own laws... what's to say their own laws don't trump Texas's laws? Yeah, Texas's laws are the laws which will ultimately prevail, but what's to say they didn't live under their own set of laws on this compound? Polygamy still existed there... whether it was legal under Texas law or not...

It would not fall under Texas law, it would fall under Federal Law, Federal lawyers are present as well in this case.......I could probably venture to say that in some of these cases, that the case to prove that some of these children have been taken over state lines, and at least one parent did not agree could be brought out. That is a whole other problem for this compound. Some of these children were left behind by their mothers.....and the mothers have been trying to get them out. I could also probably venture to say that none of these women that left legally gave up custody of their children, therefore there could be kidnapping charges as well.

This whole thing is crazy.......

[The Major]

And how do you charge someone when that's the case? Most of these people are under the impression that it's right because some nutjob told them it is. And again, there are some men who are brainwashed themselves... there were over 500 people on that compound, if I remember correctly... tell me this hasn't been experienced on both sides...

It will be incredibly difficult to figure the details out.

Still, and this is just my opinion, anyone who breaks the law even while brainwashed must face punishment for that.

Then again, they could always go for the insanity defense. Maybe that's the best scenerio, these people clearly need some psychiatric help.

I don't think they'd like being sent to mental asylums, though.



Again, there have been cases where this has not been upheld... or at least, the punishment is minimal... this would tough to do because you have to prove these men haven't been brainwashed themselves... that they are manipulating these girls in the process...

That's true.



Think about that for a second... these compounds have their own laws... what's to say their own laws don't trump Texas's laws? Yeah, Texas's laws are the laws which will ultimately prevail, but what's to say they didn't live under their own set of laws on this compound? Polygamy still existed there... whether it was legal under Texas law or not...
I'd think a state's laws would trump that.

These people still live on American soil, they have no legitimate soverignty to my knowledge, official ambassadors or any other legal rights country's have.

I wouldn't be surprised if your right about the compound having its own laws. They might even consider themselves citizens of some other nation but that shouldn't be enough to legally block Texas from doing anything.

[Marx]

I'd think a state's laws would trump that.

These people still live on American soil, they have no legitimate soverignty to my knowledge, official ambassadors or any other legal rights country's have.

I wouldn't be surprised if your right about the compound having its own laws. They might even consider themselves citizens of some other nation but that shouldn't be enough to legally block Texas from doing anything.

These compounds are on American soil and fall under American law.

[danoyse]

I'm not talking about sexual preference. (Although I am a strong advocate for equal rights.) What I am saying is that under the age of 18, whether there is consent or not, by law it is statutory rape. That's just the way it is. Religion or not.

Exactly. Being brainwashed to believe that's OK to marry at 14 doesn't make it consensual.

The problem with this sect isn't the polygamy. If it's part of their religion, and it's between consenting adults, that's fine. But as citizens of this country, where anyone under 18 is still legally a child, that's not OK.

And they bloody well know it...just watch how evasive they are whenever they're asked the question. If this really was an OK aspect of their religion, they would answer the question, not change the subject every time it's asked.

I don't see where any of them have had a choice in the marriage issue. It seems to be this or eternal damnation, as they've been led to believe.

[Marx]

Exactly. Being brainwashed to believe that's OK to marry at 14 doesn't make it consensual.

The problem with this sect isn't the polygamy. If it's part of their religion, and it's between consenting adults, that's fine. But as citizens of this country, where anyone under 18 is still legally a child, that's not OK.

And they bloody well know it...just watch how evasive they are whenever they're asked the question. If this really was an OK aspect of their religion, they would answer the question, not change the subject every time it's asked.

I don't see where any of them have had a choice in the marriage issue. It seems to be this or eternal damnation, as they've been led to believe.

Exactly Danoyse. Pretty much any question that has been asked (that I've seen) is always answered with the spacey glazed over look and tone of "Our...focus...is...on...the...children."

[The Senator]

Exactly. Being brainwashed to believe that's OK to marry at 14 doesn't make it consensual.

What if some of it isn't brainwashing? What if some of it actually is consensual, as I imagine it would be?


The problem with this sect isn't the polygamy. If it's part of their religion, and it's between consenting adults, that's fine. But as citizens of this country, where anyone under 18 is still legally a child, that's not OK.

I agree with you. In cases of rape, these children should not be subjected to it. The problem is differentiating who was brainwashed and who wasn't.


And they bloody well know it...just watch how evasive they are whenever they're asked the question. If this really was an OK aspect of their religion, they would answer the question, not change the subject every time it's asked.

I don't understand how it can be evasive when some of these men have been brainwashed into thinking these practices are alright. How do you figure out who is doing the brainwashing and who was brainwashed in the first place?


I don't see where any of them have had a choice in the marriage issue. It seems to be this or eternal damnation, as they've been led to believe.

You have to prove that in a court of law... were some of these people brainwashed, or were they acting in a consensual manner?... that's going to be difficult to peg, since not all of these folks were brainwashed in the first place... that's a real problem considering you have 500 people being investigated...

[Marx]

You have to prove that in a court of law... were some of these people brainwashed, or were they acting in a consensual manner?... that's going to be difficult to peg, since not all of these folks were brainwashed in the first place... that's a real problem considering you have 500 people being investigated...

The massive numbers in this case will be hard to navigate through, that is for sure Jman. It's going to take quite a while.

[The Senator]

It will be incredibly difficult to figure the details out.

Still, and this is just my opinion, anyone who breaks the law even while brainwashed must face punishment for that.

Then again, they could always go for the insanity defense. Maybe that's the best scenerio, these people clearly need some psychiatric help.

I don't think they'd like being sent to mental asylums, though.

The big problem isn't that they broke the laws... which they did... it's proving they actually knew they were breaking the laws...

Psychiatric issues such as these are hard to deal with in a criminal court...





I'd think a state's laws would trump that.

These people still live on American soil, they have no legitimate soverignty to my knowledge, official ambassadors or any other legal rights country's have.

I wouldn't be surprised if your right about the compound having its own laws. They might even consider themselves citizens of some other nation but that shouldn't be enough to legally block Texas from doing anything.

I didn't say they shouldn't charged under Texas or federal law... I'm not saying they have a right to have their own laws, either... I'm saying it's hard to figure out who knew they violating law and who didn't... which again, is a psychiatric case which needs to be tried on a case-by-case basis...

[The Major]

Jman:

Court appointed psychologists would be able to discover whose brainwashed and those who aren't.

[Kelly]

The big problem isn't that they broke the laws... which they did... it's proving they actually knew they were breaking the laws...

Psychiatric issues such as these are hard to deal with in a criminal court...






I didn't say they shouldn't charged under Texas or federal law... I'm not saying they have a right to have their own laws, either... I'm saying it's hard to figure out who knew they violating law and who didn't... which again, is a psychiatric case which needs to be tried on a case-by-case basis...

They are going to go for an insanity plea....???? what case could they use as precedence...

[The Senator]

They are going to go for an insanity plea....???? what case could they use as precedence...

What if this is a case without precedence... it could very well set a precedent if the attorneys decide to take this far enough...

[The Senator]

Jman:

Court appointed psychologists would be able to discover whose brainwashed and those who aren't.

Which is why it should be tried on a case-by-case basis... not en masse as many feel it should...

[Marx]

What if this is a case without precedence... it could very well set a precedent if the attorneys decide to take this far enough...

Still, psychologist's can differentiate.

[The Major]

The big problem isn't that they broke the laws... which they did... it's proving they actually knew they were breaking the laws...

Psychiatric issues such as these are hard to deal with in a criminal court...

That's true.


I didn't say they shouldn't charged under Texas or federal law... I'm not saying they have a right to have their own laws, either... I'm saying it's hard to figure out who knew they violating law and who didn't...

Okay.



which again, is a psychiatric case which needs to be tried on a case-by-case basis...

Yeah, this going to take a long time to process in the court.

[Marx]

Which is why it should be tried on a case-by-case basis... not en masse as many feel it should...

I personally don't see how it could be tried en masse...but at the same time, going individually (with over 400 children) would be a massive undertaking.

[The Major]

Which is why it should be tried on a case-by-case basis... not en masse as many feel it should...

I think they're doing that.

[Kelly]

They are bringing in judges from other areas to help with all of the cases.....

[The Senator]

I personally don't see how it could be tried en masse...but at the same time, going individually (with over 400 children) would be a massive undertaking.

Regardless of how massive an undertaking it is, that's how it should be tried if we want to ensure fairness in our judicial system.

I'm glad to see that's how it may happen, but from what I've read, it's not entirely certain at this point.

[Marx]

Regardless of how massive an undertaking it is, that's how it should be tried if we want to ensure fairness in our judicial system.

I'm glad to see that's how it may happen, but from what I've read, it's not entirely certain at this point.

Last I heard no one was sure how to proceed. I agree though, massive undertaking or not, it will be done.

[Kelly]

Last I heard no one was sure how to proceed. I agree though, massive undertaking or not, it will be done.

Whatever they do, it has to be done within 14 days......that is the law here in Texas.....some of these children were removed on April 7th, which means they have a week to prove that these children should have been removed, why and the judge/judges will then make the decision that the state keeps the kids, or they go back to the compound. If a child has a mother who is 13, that won't be a problem for the judge,.....but there is no law that states a specific age of where a child can legally make their own decisions. This will actually be up to the lawyer. The lawyer has to make the call of whether or not the child can think for him or herself. The reason this is so important is because many of these children have no idea that what was happening to them was indeed, abuse. They think it was a simple way of life, and that all children did what did.

In their (CPS) favor is the fact that under Texas law, a parent can't consent to the marriage of a child under age 16, and Texas does not recognize the common-law marriages of children under age 18. The reason this is important is because many of the children were actually, not legally married, they called it a "spiritual marriage".


We also have the Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth & Families, which will oversee the entire proceedings. The Texas Supreme Court oversees this commission.....so things will be on the up and up on all fronts.....

[Marx]

Whatever they do, it has to be done within 14 days......that is the law here in Texas.....some of these children were removed on April 7th, which means they have a week to prove that these children should have been removed, why and the judge/judges will then make the decision that the state keeps the kids, or they go back to the compound. If a child has a mother who is 13, that won't be a problem for the judge,.....but there is no law that states a specific age of where a child can legally make their own decisions. This will actually be up to the lawyer. The lawyer has to make the call of whether or not the child can think for him or herself. The reason this is so important is because many of these children have no idea that what was happening to them was indeed, abuse. They think it was a simple way of life, and that all children did what did.

In their (CPS) favor is the fact that under Texas law, a parent can't consent to the marriage of a child under age 16, and Texas does not recognize the common-law marriages of children under age 18. The reason this is important is because many of the children were actually, not legally married, they called it a "spiritual marriage".


We also have the Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth & Families, which will oversee the entire proceedings. The Texas Supreme Court oversees this commission.....so things will be on the up and up on all fronts.....

That's good to know!

[Superman]

IMO Every one of them should be put in jail.

[Morg]

IMO Every one of them should be put in jail.

Not the kids, they didn't know better thanks to the idiots adults brainwashing them

[The Senator]

IMO Every one of them should be put in jail.

Why?

[Marx]

IMO Every one of them should be put in jail.

I don't think the children should be punished for the mistakes of the sect "adults." Other than that, I agree with you Supe.

[Superman]

Well of course not the kids. I meant the adults should be put in jail.

[Marx]

Well of course not the kids. I meant the adults should be put in jail.

For some reason I couldn't help but think about the scene in "Sweeney Tood" when Judge Turpin sentences the little boy to "death by hanging." I didn't think you meant the children, but these "adults" are nutjobs!

[Marx]

ACLU weighs in on Texas polygamist custody case
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/20/polygamy.sect/index.html

[Hotwire]

Something you never see...

A polygamist woman with multiple husbands. But maybe we should, might even things out a bit.

[Marx]

DNA testing to determine parents, sex abuse
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/21/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html

[The Lizard]

Something you never see...

A polygamist woman with multiple husbands. But maybe we should, might even things out a bit.


I think the original Biblical/Mormon idea against polyandry (multiple husbands to one wife) was that you wouldn't be able to trace the children's bloodlines if you didn't know which husband was the father. Back in the old days before paternity tests, the father's bloodline was an important thing, so yet another excuse for men to get what they want.

[Marx]

Phone number links woman to sect case, document says
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/23/polygamy.arrest/index.html

[Marx]

Texas tries to ease polygamist kids' culture shock
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/23/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I have read hundreds of history books Gilpesh.Riiight.

Is that closer to 200, or like 7 or 800 hundred?
:whatever:

[Marx]

Riiight.

Is that closer to 200, or like 7 or 800 hundred?
:whatever:

I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I don't appreciate people who lie on the internet to "win" arguments or "counter" points.
I don't believe you have read "HUNDREDS" of books on history.

I have a friend who actually has a problematic addiction to books. I have refused to ever help him move again because he has thousands of books. I highly doubt that this bookfreak would say that he's read "HUNDREDS" of history books, and I don't believe you either.

It's sufficient to say "I've read plenty of history books.", but you damage your credibility by saying "hundreds"....UNLESS, I'm wrong and you really have, which would be cool...and I'd ask again, "hundreds" has to be at least 200, but can go all the way up to 900...so, which extremity are you closer to? 200, or up closer to a thousand history books?

[Marx]

I don't appreciate people who lie on the internet to "win" arguments or "counter" points.
I don't believe you have read "HUNDREDS" of books on history.

I have a friend who actually has a problematic addiction to books. I have refused to ever help him move again because he has thousands of books. I highly doubt that this bookfreak would say that he's read "HUNDREDS" of history books, and I don't believe you either.

It's sufficient to say "I've read plenty of history books.", but you damage your credibility by saying "hundreds"....UNLESS, I'm wrong and you really have, which would be cool...and I'd ask again, "hundreds" has to be at least 200, but can go all the way up to 900...so, which extremity are you closer to? 200, or up closer to a thousand history books?

In all honesty, I would say around 500 or so. (Between history, government, and law.)

[Kelly]

I think the original Biblical/Mormon idea against polyandry (multiple husbands to one wife) was that you wouldn't be able to trace the children's bloodlines if you didn't know which husband was the father. Back in the old days before paternity tests, the father's bloodline was an important thing, so yet another excuse for men to get what they want.


The bloodline is your ticket to heaven, so yes in the Mormon religion it is very important....

[YsoSerious]

So these dudes have many wives-and they're all extremely ugly! I'd understand it more if they were hot!

[Marx]

All sect children now in foster care
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/polygamy/index.html

[Marx]

Official: History of injuries found in polygamist sect children
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

[Marx]

Agency: Sect boys may have been abused too
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/30/polygamist.abuse/index.html

[Marx]

Seems that good ole Dr. Phil has to put his two cents in about everything! He has chimed in on the political race, the Austrian man who imprisoned his own daughter, the teenage girl assault case, and now the polygamy scandal.


For the full article, click below.
Dr. Phil: FLDS principals "imminent danger" for children
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/02/lkl.dr.phil/index.html

[Marx]

CPS trying to find more children at polygamy compound
http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8359508

[Marx]

Texas authorities collected DNA swabs Thursday from sect leader Warren Jeffs in an ongoing criminal investigation separate from the custody dispute.

A search warrant for the DNA alleges that Jeffs had "spiritual" marriages with four girls, ages 12 to 15. Jeffs, who is revered as a prophet among FLDS members, is in an Arizona jail awaiting trial on abuse charges.

The Texas high court let stand the appellate court's order that Texas District Judge Barbara Walther return the children from foster care to their parents. It's not clear how soon that may happen, but the appellate court ordered her to do it within a reasonable time period.


For the full article, click below.
Sect members waiting for children to be returned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

[KalMart]

let's turn marriage into a circus!

its not hurting anyone....except people who view their marriages seriously.
Can't more than two people view a marriage to eachother seriously...together?

[SV Fan]

Can't more than two people view a marriage to eachother seriously...together?

I personally believe that if all parties have no problem with it and are of age, polygamy should be legal

[The Question]

Also, even if you can argue that people in a polygamist relation ship don't take their marriage seriously, how does it hurt people who do take their marriage seriously? How does it do that at all? I take my appearance pretty seriously. I put a lot of time end effort into picking out clothes and outfits I like. Other people are slobs and will wear anything. That doesn't hurt me in the slightest. I take comic books seriously. Other people are casual fans or think they're lame. Doesn't hurt me at all. I take my high school seriously, I'm very proud of having gone there and I do what I can to support it as an alumni. Other people who went there don't. Doesn't effect me at all.

So how does polygamy hurt people who aren't polygamists?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not against it but I would never be apart of it. If my future dude wants to **** other women he will be free to divorce me.

[KalMart]

Again, if they want to make it legal, first make it fair by letting women have multiple husbands as well.

[Tanin]

Again, if they want to make it legal, first make it fair by letting women have multiple husbands as well.

I know Polymory relationships with woman having several husbands.

[Hotwire]

I think the biggest problem we would run into with legalizing polygamy would be divorce. What would each spouse be entitled to? Could one spouse divorce the rest, or would we need to dissolve the whole group? Not only that, but you would also need laws to regulate it. For example, we couldn't let one half of the original couple marry a second without consent from the other.

[Schlosser85]

In response to SentinelMind, I do not personally believe in polygamy or polyamorous or open relationships, and I take relationships and monogamy seriously.

But I think plenty of one on one marriages are circuses.

I morally disagree with polygamy and open relationships, but laws should be decided on a legal, not moral, basis, as morality is subjective. While most everyone here might agree that murder and theft is wrong, issues like homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, birth control, etc are far more controversial.

As I said, at the bottom line marriage is a legal contract issued by the government, and adults should be able to enter into a legal contract with anyone they want.

[SentinelMind]

Also, even if you can argue that people in a polygamist relation ship don't take their marriage seriously, how does it hurt people who do take their marriage seriously? How does it do that at all? I take my appearance pretty seriously. I put a lot of time end effort into picking out clothes and outfits I like. Other people are slobs and will wear anything. That doesn't hurt me in the slightest. I take comic books seriously. Other people are casual fans or think they're lame. Doesn't hurt me at all. I take my high school seriously, I'm very proud of having gone there and I do what I can to support it as an alumni. Other people who went there don't. Doesn't effect me at all.

So how does polygamy hurt people who aren't polygamists?

Scenario 1:

Billy at playground: I have three moms!

john: oh yeah...well I have five moms..

Billy: No fair!! Dad better marry some more moms




Scenario 2:

Husband: I want another wife

Wife 1: Ok..

Wife 2: Absolutely not.

Husband: Why not?

Wife 2: You said it would only be the three of of us.

Husband: I want another one.

Wife 2: I forbid it

Husband: Well, she'd be marrying me..not you.

Wife 2: She'd be marrying all three of us.

Husband: I disagree...

Wife 2: I object...I won't allow it..

Husband: Wait...do I even need your permission?

Wife 1: That's a good question..

Wife 2: We all have to agree...thats how marriage works!!!

Husband: Are you sure...can't it be 2 out of 3 be ok?

Lawyer <grinning>: I think we all need to sit down...





Scenario 3:

Cop: You have to pay child support

Dad: But I was the second husband...not the biological father.

Cop: That's not what the birth certificate says.

Dad: It only had two spots...I was generous at the time...but I wasn't ready to be a dad. Look for the other guy.

Cop: We can't find him..we can find you.

Dad: It isn't fair...its so unfair.

[SentinelMind]

In all seriousness, polygamy makes marriage into a joke because it diminishes the value of commitment. IT now opens all existing marriages to the option and temptation of adding more partners to an existing and creating numerous legal problems when now three or more people have disagreements. How does property get divided if one wants a divorce? Who's consent is required to add another partner? Do you need just the spouse or all the existing partners? What about raising kids? Does the extra spouses now have legal rights to children they didn't give birth to? What value is there in creating that type of circus? Marriage is an institution that serves to protect fabric of society...not just some contract thrown around for giggles.

[SentinelMind]

As I said, at the bottom line marriage is a legal contract issued by the government, and adults should be able to enter into a legal contract with anyone they want.

We have a right to define terms and benefits and responsibilities of all contracts that recognize bonds between two people. If society deems it inappropriate to recognize polygamous relationships, that is a valid reason to prohibit it. You don't have a right to create any government recognition status you want and call it marriage.

[SentinelMind]

I think the biggest problem we would run into with legalizing polygamy would be divorce. What would each spouse be entitled to? Could one spouse divorce the rest, or would we need to dissolve the whole group? Not only that, but you would also need laws to regulate it. For example, we couldn't let one half of the original couple marry a second without consent from the other.

I wish I read this first...you're right..you're creating a whole litany of legal conflicts that will fill up our civil court rooms. For what? For giggles? This entitlement that you have a right to do whatever I want regardless of consequences and have government sanction and approve it and provide benefits for it. yeah.

[Schlosser85]

Society once deemed slavery appropriate and interracial marriages inappropriate. Laws should not be decided solely on the basis of what society thinks.

But as I said, I don't personally approve of polygamy or polyamorous relationships. I'm just playing devils advocate.

[SV Fan]

I personally would love to see Polygamy be discussed in a political sense just for the fact you can't use the bible to argue against it(I would love to see how the religious conservatives tried to wiggle there way out of that one). lol

But as I said, I don't personally approve of polygamy or polyamorous relationships. I'm just playing devils advocate.

I personally could care less one way or another, but I generally will side on the choice of choice as long as it doesn't hurt anybody involved directly.

[The Question]

Scenario 1:

Billy at playground: I have three moms!

john: oh yeah...well I have five moms..

Billy: No fair!! Dad better marry some more moms

Why would that scenario even matter? It's just little kids talking.


Scenario 2:

Husband: I want another wife

Wife 1: Ok..

Wife 2: Absolutely not.

Husband: Why not?

Wife 2: You said it would only be the three of of us.

Husband: I want another one.

Wife 2: I forbid it

Husband: Well, she'd be marrying me..not you.

Wife 2: She'd be marrying all three of us.

Husband: I disagree...

Wife 2: I object...I won't allow it..

Husband: Wait...do I even need your permission?

Wife 1: That's a good question..

Wife 2: We all have to agree...thats how marriage works!!!

Husband: Are you sure...can't it be 2 out of 3 be ok?

Lawyer <grinning>: I think we all need to sit down...

Again, so what? It's not like marital disputes don't already exist.


Scenario 3:

Cop: You have to pay child support

Dad: But I was the second husband...not the biological father.

Cop: That's not what the birth certificate says.

Dad: It only had two spots...I was generous at the time...but I wasn't ready to be a dad. Look for the other guy.

Cop: We can't find him..we can find you.

Dad: It isn't fair...its so unfair.

That doesn't even make any sense? Why would someone who's not a child's biological father put his name down on the birth certificate if the biological father is still in the picture?

In all seriousness, polygamy makes marriage into a joke because it diminishes the value of commitment. IT now opens all existing marriages to the option and temptation of adding more partners to an existing and creating numerous legal problems when now three or more people have disagreements. How does property get divided if one wants a divorce? Who's consent is required to add another partner? Do you need just the spouse or all the existing partners? What about raising kids? Does the extra spouses now have legal rights to children they didn't give birth to? What value is there in creating that type of circus? Marriage is an institution that serves to protect fabric of society...not just some contract thrown around for giggles.

In what way does it diminish the value of commitment? How does three people being in a polygamous relationship in any way effect the value of the commitment between two people in a traditional marriage?

All of the things you mentioned are significant logistical issues, but their logistical issues that effect the individuals in a polygamous relationship, and not anyone else. If people choose to have to deal with those logistical issues because they feel it's worth it, that's their choice. It wouldn't effect the marriages of others. Legalizing polygamy wouldn't force everyone else to have polygamous relationships, and I doubt it would grow significantly in popularity. Most people wouldn't want it. Most people wouldn't like it. It's outside of their cultural context and comfort zone.

What's the value in creating that kind of circus? Some people want it. Some people feel it would enrich their lives. And no one would have to buy tickets to that circus if they don't want to.

I ask you:

1: What does protecting the fabric of society mean?

2: How does marriage accomplish this?

3: How would polygamy weaken or erode marriages ability to protect the fabric of society?


If society deems it inappropriate to recognize polygamous relationships, that is a valid reason to prohibit it.

No it's not. That's a terrible reason to recognize something. Society deems a lot of things that are completely harmless as inappropriate. Society used to deem interracial marriages as inappropriate. Things should only be prohibited if society deems them inappropriate for reasons that make sense.

[SentinelMind]

In what way does it diminish the value of commitment? How does three people being in a polygamous relationship in any way effect the value of the commitment between two people in a traditional marriage?

It sends the intrinsic message to other committed couples and children growing up that if their marriage doesn't work out, they can just find another spouse. It adds further temptation to erode existing marriage vows like easy divorce and welfare. If you can always add another spouse, there is no presumption of commitment in other people's marriages. Society will evolve based on legal framework in place, so its reasonable to assume society to encourage straight couples to add more spouses to an existing straight couple relationship.

[SentinelMind]

I personally would love to see Polygamy be discussed in a political sense just for the fact you can't use the bible to argue against it(I would love to see how the religious conservatives tried to wiggle there way out of that one). lol


Easy, (assuming we're talking about the Bible and not Book of Mormon), its a sin to have more than one spouse...just because certain individuals in the Bible chose to behave that way doesn't mean God approved of it. The Bible is filled with sinners.

[SentinelMind]

Society once deemed slavery appropriate and interracial marriages inappropriate. Laws should not be decided solely on the basis of what society thinks..

You're comparing polygamy rights to end of slavery or introduction of interracial marriage?

If so, is it fair for me to compare gay marriage to incest marriage?
Aren't all the arguments all the same?

[SentinelMind]

No it's not. That's a terrible reason to recognize something. Society deems a lot of things that are completely harmless as inappropriate. Society used to deem interracial marriages as inappropriate. Things should only be prohibited if society deems them inappropriate for reasons that make sense.

If society isn't the one who gets to decide social institutions, then who does? Academic elites? I'm disturbed by the arrogant elitism that exists from the Left when it comes to their view on social engineering. They think every new type of relationship should be rewarded and celebrated in the classroom, regardless of their social impact.

[SentinelMind]

. Most people wouldn't want it. Most people wouldn't like it. It's outside of their cultural context and comfort zone.

Of course that would change if it were legalized. Obviously some people will consider it once it became legal and there will be support groups to further legitimize that type of relationship. Its naive to think otherwise. Changing these type of institutions is a means to advance social engineering. Children who have not been taught tradition will now start looking towards these fringe relationships as acceptable. That's the whole point.

[The Question]

It sends the intrinsic message to other committed couples and children growing up that if their marriage doesn't work out, they can just find another spouse.

That's already the case. It's currently entirely legal to get remarried if your first marriage fails.

It adds further temptation to erode existing marriage vows like easy divorce and welfare. If you can always add another spouse, there is no presumption of commitment in other people's marriages. Society will evolve based on legal framework in place, so its reasonable to assume society to encourage straight couples to add more spouses to an existing straight couple relationship.

It's not reasonable to assume that at all. Just having it be legal wouldn't mean it would be beneficial for society to encourage it.

1: I think you're assuming that it's much easier to find someone who wants to marry you than it is. Most people have a hard time finding one spouse, let alone two.

2: I think you misjudge the human animal. Some people might think the solution to their marriage woes would be an extra spouse, but the way that humans generally couple and are generally inclined to couple, it seems unlikely to me that that would be a hasty solution often enough to be considered a real problem in society. Again, most people would have a hard time finding an extra spouse, but even if they could, I doubt many people would see it as a solution for a marriage on the rocks. In that case they'd be more likely to get a divorce and then remarry, I think.

3: Even if (and it's a pretty big if) this sort of thing became the cultural norm, I still have to ask: What's the harm? What if a group of people feel committed to one another? How is it not a commitment if there's more than two? Why is it only possible for there to be a real commitment if there are only two people involved?

If society isn't the one who gets to decide social institutions, then who does? Academic elites? I'm disturbed by the arrogant elitism that exists from the Left when it comes to their view on social engineering. They think every new type of relationship should be rewarded and celebrated in the classroom, regardless of their social impact.

1: Look at the above examples of slavery and a taboo of interracial marriage. These things aren't very similar to polygamy in a logistical sense, but there were brought up to prove the point that just because society deems something to be appropriate or inappropriate doesn't mean it's right or makes any sense. If we kept with the idea that "society says this is good/bad, so it must be so" then there would still be slavery and interracial marriage would still be illegal.

"Society says it's inappropriate" is a bad argument, plain and simple.

Obviously "society" decides what is and what isn't because society is what we live in. Even if the "academic elites" as you call them push for some kind of social change, if they succeed then it is still, in the end, society deciding something because the minds of enough people who make up society have been changed to bring about change.

The point is that if society says something is inappropriate, but there's no logical, practical, or ethical reason that it should be, then that should be changed.

If you're going to argue against polygamy, argue as to why it's harmful to our society and culture, don't just argue that "society says so," because society has said some dumb things in the past.

Of course, I know you HAVE talks about legitimate impact, which leads me to...

2: What is the social impact? All of the legal issues you've mentioned are logistical problems that would have to be overcome by individual families. And if they want to face them because they think it's worth it, then that's their choice.

Everything else you've brought up is incredibly nebulous. "It would erode commitment." How? I know you've said that it would increase temptation in monogamous couples to add other spouses, but you haven't actually offered any evidence to support that claim, just conjecture. And even IF that were the case (I'm not saying it is, because again you've offered no evidence to suggest that) you've yet to demonstrate why that would be a bad thing. So what if people start adding new spouses left and right? I wouldn't personally want to do that, and if I were married and my wife wanted a second husband I'd be uncomfortable with it, but what's the harm if that becomes a common trend? Who does that hurt, other than individuals who's marriages don't work out?

Earlier, you said that marriage protects the fabric of society. You have yet to explain what this means or how polygamy being legalized would hinder this.

Of course that would change if it were legalized. Obviously some people will consider it once it became legal and there will be support groups to further legitimize that type of relationship. Its naive to think otherwise. Changing these type of institutions is a means to advance social engineering. Children who have not been taught tradition will now start looking towards these fringe relationships as acceptable. That's the whole point.

It will become more acceptable, yes. Will it become universally acceptable? I see no reason to assume that. The human species has been largely monogamous for most of it's history. Even in countries where having multiple spouses is legal, many people still have traditional two-spouse marriages. There will be more polygamy, certainly, but I see no evidence that it will become the norm and supplant traditional marriages. Even children who look toward this "fringe relationships" as acceptable... most of them probably won't enter into them, they'll probably just not care that other people do.

And even if they do, I have to ask once again: What's the harm?

[Hotwire]

I wish I read this first...you're right..you're creating a whole litany of legal conflicts that will fill up our civil court rooms. For what? For giggles? This entitlement that you have a right to do whatever I want regardless of consequences and have government sanction and approve it and provide benefits for it. yeah.
Not sure if serious.

[Schlosser85]

SentinelMind and I/others in this thread are looking at this from fundamentally different viewpoints, and that's why our posts are so incomprehensible to each other.

It's the whole argument of law being decided by what is morally right for society, and law being decided strictly by pragmatic legalistic judgment.

[SentinelMind]

there is no right to polygamy in the Constitution. So polygamy supporters have to make a compelling reason why it should be legal and why state legislatures should adopt it. They have the burden to prove it will provide benefit to society that will outweigh the litany of legal paperwork and contractual nightmares that would arise from its legalization. If the demand for polygamy is as little as the Question says it is, I see no reason to accommodate the desires of those who want dramatically redefine marriage. The point is that once that option became legal, the culture will reflect this new legal status. You're using the government to change the perception and value of marriages in this country. I do think the cultural impact of modifications to our institutions is a legitimate thing to consider. It impacts the well-being and livelihood of next generation of civilization. This idea that government recognize every relationship and provide benefits just because someone out there wants it and wants that to be given equal consideration to century long tradition is pretty absurd.

If there's people who truly want it, they need to go to Utah and try secede.

[The Question]

there is no right to polygamy in the Constitution. So polygamy supporters have to make a compelling reason why it should be legal and why state legislatures should adopt it. They have the burden to prove it will provide benefit to society that will outweigh the litany of legal paperwork and contractual nightmares that would arise from its legalization. If the demand for polygamy is as little as the Question says it is, I see no reason to accommodate the desires of those who want dramatically redefine marriage. The point is that once that option became legal, the culture will reflect this new legal status. You're using the government to change the perception and value of marriages in this country. I do think the cultural impact of modifications to our institutions is a legitimate thing to consider. It impacts the well-being and livelihood of next generation of civilization. This idea that government recognize every relationship and provide benefits just because someone out there wants it and wants that to be given equal consideration to century long tradition is pretty absurd.

If there's people who truly want it, they need to go to Utah and try secede.

What harm would it do TO SOCIETY as opposed to simply giving some people more paperwork to deal with.

How would it NEGATIVELY impact our culture? You say that it would change our perceptions of marriage, that it would redefine it. That is true. Why is that inherently a bad thing, though?

If people want something and it wouldn't hurt anyone else, then it shouldn't be illegal. It doesn't matter if the people who want it are in the minority. If there's no reason they shouldn't be able to then the government shouldn't ban it, regardless of how big a group is being effective.

Also: "This idea that government recognize every relationship and provide benefits just because someone out there wants it and wants that to be given equal consideration to century long tradition is pretty absurd."

Why is it absurd? Why does the centuries long tradition deserve more consideration? Because it's old? Why does that make it inherently better than a newer thing?

When something is banned, the burden of proof is on society to come up with a good reason for why it should be banned in the first place.

[SentinelMind]

You say that it would change our perceptions of marriage, that it would redefine it. That is true. Why is that inherently a bad thing, though?

You admit that legalizing polygamy dramatically redefining the nature of marriage. Why do you feel existing married couples don't have a right defend the value of their marriages? Who are you to impose redefinition of their state recognized relationship? If current married couples feel polygamy waters down their existing relationships by making it harder for other to perceive the strength of their commitment, who are you to tell them how they should feel or that the damage isn't that bad?

[Bat-Mite]

Easy, (assuming we're talking about the Bible and not Book of Mormon), its a sin to have more than one spouse...just because certain individuals in the Bible chose to behave that way doesn't mean God approved of it. The Bible is filled with sinners.Could you post even ONE Bible verse where God directly condemns polygamy? I've read the Bible for many years and have never come across such a thing.

There are Bible verses, however, where a man is commanded to marry his deceased brother's childless widow if they (the brothers) were living in the same house. If he was already married himself, it didn't get him off the hook. Nothing did. If he didn't marry his brother's widow, he was publicly shamed before the community. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025:5-10&version=NIV)

[SentinelMind]

There are verses in Bible where God says man and woman will unite and become one. That doesn't directly answer your question, but there there are no verses where God is encouraging polygamy either. The Bible also mentions the problems King Solomon acquired from his polygamous relationships.

Deuteronomy is an Old Testament Mosaic Law for Kingdom of Israel. It was meant to promote order but it is not a spiritual requirement for those who are saved now.

[The Question]

You admit that legalizing polygamy dramatically redefining the nature of marriage. Why do you feel existing married couples don't have a right defend the value of their marriages? Who are you to impose redefinition of their state recognized relationship? If current married couples feel polygamy waters down their existing relationships by making it harder for other to perceive the strength of their commitment, who are you to tell them how they should feel or that the damage isn't that bad?

I guess my overall stance is that one person's marriage has nothing to do with anyone else's. Polygamy may redefine marriage in the sense that multiple spouses is legal and acceptable, but it doesn't have a tangible effect on traditional two-person marriages. If a current married couple "feels" that polygamy waters down their existing relationship, if wether or not other people perceive the strength of their commitment matters to them, I really can't say anything to that because I really can't change someone's gut, emotional reaction. All I can do is point out that it's irrational, and that seems very irrational to me. Other people don't perceive the strength of your commitment to your partner? Screw them. The only person it should matter to is your partner.

That being said, I don't see how it would cause people to not see the strength of a commitment. If two people are strongly committed to each other, that's a fact. Wether or not they have the legal option of tracking a second spouse doesn't effect that. If anything, having that option and not taking it shows their commitment to be even stronger, because they don't need anybody else.

I don't think people shouldn't have the right to defend the value of their marriages. I just don't see how polygamy devalues the marriages of people who aren't involved in polygamist marriages in any way. The value of a relationship comes from the people in it, not people on the outside. Wether or not marriage "means something" by some vague, nebulous societal standard should be irrelevant. The only think that should mean anything is wether or not your marriage means anything to you.

In the end, the reason I don't oppose polygamy is because I don't think people should be banned from doing something because other people who aren't directly involved may be uncomfortable with it. You asked me "who are you to tell them how they should feel or that the damage isn't that bad?" I ask you, and anyone else who opposes polygamy for somehow "devaluing" marriage: Who are you to tell someone they can't do something, something that you personally don't have to have anything to do with if you don't want to, because you find it to be personally offensive?

I don't think people should have the right to ban other people from doing something that doesn't directly involve them, does't hurt anybody, and no one is forced to do.

[SentinelMind]

I guess my overall stance is that one person's marriage has nothing to do with anyone else's. Polygamy may redefine marriage in the sense that multiple spouses is legal and acceptable, but it doesn't have a tangible effect on traditional two-person marriages. If a current married couple "feels" that polygamy waters down their existing relationship, if wether or not other people perceive the strength of their commitment matters to them, I really can't say anything to that because I really can't change someone's gut, emotional reaction. All I can do is point out that it's irrational, and that seems very irrational to me. Other people don't perceive the strength of your commitment to your partner? Screw them. The only person it should matter to is your partner.

It isn't irrational because once you change the definition of marriage it is reasonable to suggest that people's value or perception of that institution changes. There's nothing irrational about changing your value system of an institution once the institution is changed.


In the end, the reason I don't oppose polygamy is because I don't think people should be banned from doing something because other people who aren't directly involved may be uncomfortable with it. You asked me "who are you to tell them how they should feel or that the damage isn't that bad?" I ask you, and anyone else who opposes polygamy for somehow "devaluing" marriage: Who are you to tell someone they can't do something, something that you personally don't have to have anything to do with if you don't want to, because you find it to be personally offensive?

It weakens the institution of marriage. Marriage is already taking a hit with high, easy access to divorce, welfare system that encourages single motherhood, and the redefinition in states to include gay marriage. Why throw another bomb at the last leg still holding it up. Marriage is a contract that is celebrated in society because we perceive it providing a unique, special benefit to society when raising kids. You can't separate the public acknowledgement of the relationship from the value the public places in that relationship. The reason some group of people want to change the definition is because of those benefits we the public, we the people, are placing in that relationship. It's hypocritical to turn around and suggest the public perception of that institution no longer matters.

[WildcatNC]

Society once deemed slavery appropriate and interracial marriages inappropriate. Laws should not be decided solely on the basis of what society thinks.

But as I said, I don't personally approve of polygamy or polyamorous relationships. I'm just playing devils advocate.

I have no dog in the fight, morally. I wouldn't do it but I think what adults decide to do between themselves should be up to them. Obviously with caveats for coercion, abuse, etc.

You're comparing polygamy rights to end of slavery or introduction of interracial marriage?

If so, is it fair for me to compare gay marriage to incest marriage?
Aren't all the arguments all the same?

I believe people are inherently implying "agreement between consenting adults", not abused, coerced children.

On a base level he's right. If Polygamy should be illegal because people don't like it then Alabama should be able to ban interracial marriage. Child abuse is another topic.

Slavery is a bad example because it involves someones rights and freedoms being violated, which is what the constitution "should" protect.

If society isn't the one who gets to decide social institutions, then who does? Academic elites? I'm disturbed by the arrogant elitism that exists from the Left when it comes to their view on social engineering. They think every new type of relationship should be rewarded and celebrated in the classroom, regardless of their social impact.

My opinion is that our rights and freedoms should be protected by the constitution, with a clear separation of church and state. This includes people trying to "legislate morality", which is what nearly ALL the marriage arguments boil down to.

It doesn't matter what society thinks when it comes to our basic human rights. This includes the right for competent adults to enter into a mutually agreeable contract of their choosing. The governments only role should be making sure there is no harm, coercion, and enforcing the contract laws. Doing what you say then segregation would have probably lasted another 10-15 years, if not more.

It seems like your advocating legislating morality.

[The Question]

It isn't irrational because once you change the definition of marriage it is reasonable to suggest that people's value or perception of that institution changes. There's nothing irrational about changing your value system of an institution once the institution is changed.

That's true. What is irrational, though, is worrying about other people doing that. When an institution changes, society's perception of it, as a whole, will change. But an individual's doesn't. Two people in a monogamous marriage don't have to change how they view their marriage if the law changes to allow other kinds of marriage.

It weakens the institution of marriage. Marriage is already taking a hit with high, easy access to divorce, welfare system that encourages single motherhood, and the redefinition in states to include gay marriage. Why throw another bomb at the last leg still holding it up. Marriage is a contract that is celebrated in society because we perceive it providing a unique, special benefit to society when raising kids. You can't separate the public acknowledgement of the relationship from the value the public places in that relationship. The reason some group of people want to change the definition is because of those benefits we the public, we the people, are placing in that relationship. It's hypocritical to turn around and suggest the public perception of that institution no longer matters.

It's not hypocritical, it's arguing that the perception is overly and unnecessarily narrow.

I have several questions:

1: Why is it a bad thing for there to be easy access to divorce? What if two people made a mistake when they got married, or one or both of them changes, or the relationship just turns out to be unhealthy? Why should they be forced to stay in that relationship? How is it better for a child to be raised by divorced parents than by parents in a loveless or distractive marriage?

2: What's wrong with single parenthood? Why should a parent be forced to stay in a bad relationship or remarry when their first one ends even if they can't immediately find the right person? How is it more harmful for a child to be raised by a single mother than to be raised by parents in a loveless and/or abusive marriage?

3: What's wrong with gay marriage? How is a gay couple less capable of raising a child than a straight couple?

4: How would the members of a polygamist union be less able to raise children than ones in a monogamous union? In some ways it's probably easier, more people to share the burden and all.

[SentinelMind]

I believe people are inherently implying "agreement between consenting adults", not abused, coerced children.

On a base level he's right. If Polygamy should be illegal because people don't like it then Alabama should be able to ban interracial marriage. Child abuse is another topic.

No, the American people adopted the 13th and 14th amendment to end racial discrimination in this country after the Civil War. Nowhere did they mention the redefinition of marriage.


My opinion is that our rights and freedoms should be protected by the constitution, with a clear separation of church and state. This includes people trying to "legislate morality", which is what nearly ALL the marriage arguments boil down to.

It doesn't matter what society thinks when it comes to our basic human rights. This includes the right for competent adults to enter into a mutually agreeable contract of their choosing. The governments only role should be making sure there is no harm, coercion, and enforcing the contract laws. Doing what you say then segregation would have probably lasted another 10-15 years, if not more.

It seems like your advocating legislating morality.

You don't have a right to have six wives. If you can show me where in the US Constitution it says this, then I will change my mind. Just because you want something really really bad doesn't mean you have a right to it.

Any power not endowed in Constitution needs to be decided by state legislature. Our founders created this country to give people freedom decide what institutions we wanted within our community. If one state wanted to try change the definition and another state didn't want to, federalism mentioned in our Constitution allows each state to try their own method without imposing that will on another state.

The cliche segregation argument used to justify polygamy and every new "social experiment come lately" is already answered by the 13th and 14th amendment. Those social experiments are not named in those amendments.

[SentinelMind]

That's true. What is irrational, though, is worrying about other people doing that. When an institution changes, society's perception of it, as a whole, will change. But an individual's doesn't. Two people in a monogamous marriage don't have to change how they view their marriage if the law changes to allow other kinds of marriage.

So you admit we are all changing our perception of the institution as a society, but then lamenting people from worrying how other people perceive their existing marriage after the institution has been dramatically altered? I don't understand this split-minded perception and why it should be imposed on anyone.

I'll answer the latter half of your post another time.

[The Question]

So you admit we are all changing our perception of the institution as a society, but then lamenting people from worrying how other people perceive their existing marriage after the institution has been dramatically altered? I don't understand this split-minded perception and why it should be imposed on anyone.

I'll answer the latter half of your post another time.

It's not split minded. How other people perceive your marriage shouldn't matter. If we legalized polygamy, how would it effect monogamous marriages? If people started thinking they were "lame" or "old fashioned," well then they can go **** themselves. That does't and should not have any impact on people in monogamous marriages. If other people assume that people in monogamous marriages are less dedicated to each other because polygamy is an option, guess what effect that has? Absolutely nothing. What matters in a relationship is wether or not the people involved are committed to each other, not what everyone else thinks.

Also, I see no indication that anyone would start to think those things about people in monogamous marriages if polygamy were legalized.

[WildcatNC]

No, the American people adopted the 13th and 14th amendment to end racial discrimination in this country after the Civil War. Nowhere did they mention the redefinition of marriage.



You don't have a right to have six wives. If you can show me where in the US Constitution it says this, then I will change my mind. Just because you want something really really bad doesn't mean you have a right to it.

Any power not endowed in Constitution needs to be decided by state legislature. Our founders created this country to give people freedom decide what institutions we wanted within our community. If one state wanted to try change the definition and another state didn't want to, federalism mentioned in our Constitution allows each state to try their own method without imposing that will on another state.

The cliche segregation argument used to justify polygamy and every new "social experiment come lately" is already answered by the 13th and 14th amendment. Those social experiments are not named in those amendments.

The bold is your only real solid argument legally. Any power not expressly given to the federal government shall fall to the states/people. No one but you and those who believe like you do are telling people who they have to marry. Most of those on my side are saying people should be free to decide for themselves who they marry.

Is marriage mentioned in the constitution at all?? Does it say anything about it? Does that mean we shouldn't have it at all by your logic then?

I'm saying that YOU should be able to marry a woman if you want. Some other guy should be able to marry a man if each wants to. Another should be able to marry two women if they are all consenting adults. Your the one arguing for the limiting of personal rights based on your morality and religious beliefs. I'm saying everyone (including you) should be able to live their life however they wish as long as no harm or coersion is involved.

It seems that you will argue whatever supports your narrative of protecting "traditional american values" and bounce from objective to subjective reasoning as it suits you. My opinion is that the very basis of your argument is your wanting to legislate your subjective opinion of how people should live onto others.

This whole "sanctity of marriage" nonsense is the main problem. Its not. It didn't take polygamy or gay marriage to show that either. Regular Man/Woman couples have done a great job of that without them.

As a matter of fact the government has no business involving itself in Marriage one way or another. It should merely enforce and uphold fair contract laws entered in by consenting adults.

Thats all marriage is from a legal perspective. A contractual union entered into by consenting adults. The rest is subjective Religious and Morale opinion, which the government has no business regulating.

This all falls under "separation of church and state" and "liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The constitution was put in place to protect our rights from government intervention, not to protect the state governments rights to remove the basic rights granted therein.

[KalMart]

You don't have a right to have six wives. If you can show me where in the US Constitution it says this, then I will change my mind. Just because you want something really really bad doesn't mean you have a right to it.
Where in the constitution does it say you can't, or that you can only have one?

Just because you don't want something really badly, doesn't mean it's prohibited.

[Schlosser85]

If two gay people getting married affects your marriage, then that says more about you than them.

Also, I don't see how a committed, monogamous gay couple getting married supposedly erodes family values. If anything, I would say they're displaying family values.

[SentinelMind]

Where in the constitution does it say you can't, or that you can only have one?

Just because you don't want something really badly, doesn't mean it's prohibited.

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's left up to the state. I'm not saying its unconstitutional to legalize polygamy. I'm saying as of right now it is left up to the state, as mentioned in the 10th amendment. The state legislatures should decide how to define marriage and the burden is on polygamy supporters to discuss the benefits for legalizing it.

[SentinelMind]

It's not split minded. How other people perceive your marriage shouldn't matter. If we legalized polygamy, how would it effect monogamous marriages? If people started thinking they were "lame" or "old fashioned," well then they can go **** themselves. That does't and should not have any impact on people in monogamous marriages. If other people assume that people in monogamous marriages are less dedicated to each other because polygamy is an option, guess what effect that has? Absolutely nothing. What matters in a relationship is wether or not the people involved are committed to each other, not what everyone else thinks.

Also, I see no indication that anyone would start to think those things about people in monogamous marriages if polygamy were legalized.

I could definitely see a guy thinking that if their traditional one-husband-one-wife marriage didn't work out they always have the option of marrying another woman instead of getting into a messy divorce.

[SV Fan]

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's left up to the state. I'm not saying its unconstitutional to legalize polygamy. I'm saying as of right now it is left up to the state, as mentioned in the 10th amendment. The state legislatures should decide how to define marriage and the burden is on polygamy supporters to discuss the benefits for legalizing it.

Isn't the story that Utah wasn't allowed to joint he states till it made polygamy illegal? That doesn't sound like giving the states the option to choose.

[SentinelMind]

The bold is your only real solid argument legally. Any power not expressly given to the federal government shall fall to the states/people. No one but you and those who believe like you do are telling people who they have to marry. Most of those on my side are saying people should be free to decide for themselves who they marry.

Saying people should be "free to marry whomever they want" regardless of laws is a moral argument.



Is marriage mentioned in the constitution at all?? Does it say anything about it? Does that mean we shouldn't have it at all by your logic then?


No, my logic is follow the 10th amendment.


I'm saying that YOU should be able to marry a woman if you want. Some other guy should be able to marry a man if each wants to. Another should be able to marry two women if they are all consenting adults. Your the one arguing for the limiting of personal rights based on your morality and religious beliefs. I'm saying everyone (including you) should be able to live their life however they wish as long as no harm or coersion is involved.


Creating rights out of thin air not mentioned in any legal document is a moral argument. Why do I have to acknowledge your legal relationship with state-sanctioned benefits and privileges if its inconsistent with our existing laws?

Should a man be allowed to marry his adult daughter? Do you believe you have a right to to marry a close relative? Where does this right come from? Why do you believe an incest relationship deserves equal protection as any other marriage?

[The Question]

I could definitely see a guy thinking that if their traditional one-husband-one-wife marriage didn't work out they always have the option of marrying another woman instead of getting into a messy divorce.

How does that make any sense? He's still in a marriage that doesn't work. He's just added another one on top of that. And it's not like finding a second wife would be easy. Getting married once is hard enough as it is, let alone twice. He'd face most of the logistical problems of getting divorced and getting remarried, with the added problem of still being legally connected to his first wife.

The only scenario where this would be a thing is that it would make straight up leaving his wife easier, because he doesn't have to get divorced to get remarried. But seeing as how she is still capable of filing for divorce, and plenty of guys leave their wives and run off with their mistresses without bothering to get a divorce already, I don't see it being an end of the world kind of thing.

And even if that did happen, so what? How does that effect anybody else? How does someone doing that effect a healthy, stable monogamous marriage?

[The Question]

Saying people should be "free to marry whomever they want" regardless of laws is a moral argument.

We're not saying "regardless of laws," we're saying we should change the law.

[Hotwire]

Again, the only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want polygamy to be legal would be the, well, legal aspect of it. Currently, a divorce between two people with two kids is hard enough. Imagine the legal headache you would face if a man wanted to divorce wife number 4 and they have 3 kids between them and a total of 8 kids in the family. You would also have to think of who could initiate the divorce. Could one wife, who can't stand another wife, divorce herself somehow from the other wife, but stay with the husband?

Bottom line, if we, as a country, were to legalize it, there would have to be a massive set of legal guidelines to go with it. There would need to be regulations on how a couple could go about adding/divorcing one or more spouses.

[SentinelMind]

We're not saying "regardless of laws," we're saying we should change the law.

Ok, if you're arguing that it would beneficial to society to legalize it but not that you have a right to it, then that's one argument. I disagree, but I can accept that argument. Saying that you have an implicit right to polygamy regardless of existing laws indicates a moral argument.

[The Question]

Again, the only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want polygamy to be legal would be the, well, legal aspect of it. Currently, a divorce between two people with two kids is hard enough. Imagine the legal headache you would face if a man wanted to divorce wife number 4 and they have 3 kids between them and a total of 8 kids in the family. You would also have to think of who could initiate the divorce. Could one wife, who can't stand another wife, divorce herself somehow from the other wife, but stay with the husband?

Bottom line, if we, as a country, were to legalize it, there would have to be a massive set of legal guidelines to go with it. There would need to be regulations on how a couple could go about adding/divorcing one or more spouses.

That's a pretty legitimate concern, actually.

[Hotwire]

I could definitely see a guy thinking that if their traditional one-husband-one-wife marriage didn't work out they always have the option of marrying another woman instead of getting into a messy divorce.
You're referring to bigamy. While basically the same thing as polygamy, bigamy is done behind the back of the first spouse.

[SentinelMind]

Again, the only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want polygamy to be legal would be the, well, legal aspect of it. Currently, a divorce between two people with two kids is hard enough. Imagine the legal headache you would face if a man wanted to divorce wife number 4 and they have 3 kids between them and a total of 8 kids in the family. You would also have to think of who could initiate the divorce. Could one wife, who can't stand another wife, divorce herself somehow from the other wife, but stay with the husband?

Bottom line, if we, as a country, were to legalize it, there would have to be a massive set of legal guidelines to go with it. There would need to be regulations on how a couple could go about adding/divorcing one or more spouses.

Exactly...why do we need this legal nightmare? Unemployed lawyers may like it, but I don't see how this benefits society. The polygamy supporters have burden of demonstrating the value polygamy brings to society to overcome this avalanche of civil headaches. Thinking of the institutional reforms that would need to be put in place to accommodate polygamy is NOT a trivial pursuit.

[Hotwire]

Ok, if you're arguing that it would beneficial to society to legalize it but not that you have a right to it, then that's one argument. I disagree, but I can accept that argument. Saying that you have an implicit right to polygamy regardless of existing laws indicates a moral argument.
Just saying, but there are tons of things that are perfectly legal, yet offer no benefit to society.

[SentinelMind]

If there is a consensus that somebody wants to engage in that activity and the activity provides little to no harm to others, then the general public believes there is some benefit to society.

[The Question]

If there is a consensus that somebody wants to engage in that activity and the activity provides little to no harm to others, then the general public believes there is some benefit to society.

Which pretty accurately defines polygamy.

The only possible "harm" is the aforementioned logistical issue of writing the laws properly. And that's not harm, that just means that whatever bill legalizes has to be very well thought out and include an efficient system for dealing with the inevitable legal complications.

You know, much like the legal framework that exists for normal marriage.

[SentinelMind]

Which pretty accurately defines polygamy.

in your opinion...but not the opinion of many of the the married couples in America. Thank goodness for democracy.


The only possible "harm" is the aforementioned logistical issue of writing the laws properly. And that's not harm, that just means that whatever bill legalizes has to be very well thought out and include an efficient system for dealing with the inevitable legal complications.


You know, much like the legal framework that exists for normal marriage.

x1000 complication. which means its not really like the existing framework.

[The Question]

in your opinion...but not the opinion of many of the the married couples in America. Thank goodness for democracy.

Yeah. And they are wrong. Because polygamy doesn't harm or even effect anybody but polygamists.


x1000 complication. which means its not really like the existing framework.

I meant that the legal framework that already exists for marriage has to be well planned to deal with possible bad things happening. So would the revised framework for legalizing polygamy. It goes hand in hand with making laws.

[Hotwire]

in your opinion...but not the opinion of many of the the married couples in America. Thank goodness for democracy.

The only marriage that has any impact on my marriage, is mine. What anyone else does with their consenting spouse, has no effect on my marriage whatsoever. If two men marry each other, nothing changes in my house. If two women marry the same man, my family and I go about our business.

Also, not one person has ever been able to explain to me how another person's marriage has any effect on mine. Not one. Care to give it a shot?

[KalMart]

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's left up to the state. I'm not saying its unconstitutional to legalize polygamy. I'm saying as of right now it is left up to the state, as mentioned in the 10th amendment. The state legislatures should decide how to define marriage and the burden is on polygamy supporters to discuss the benefits for legalizing it.
You challenged to find in the constitution where it said you could....it doesn't...nor does it say you can't, or anything about single-spouse marriage either. If you knew there was nothing said about any of it in the constitution then don't bring up the constitution as some overpowering standard on it to begin with...as if to call something 'unconstitutional' when the opposite isn't precisely 'constitutional' either. Stick with the state issues specifically if that's what you want to discuss.

[warhorse78]

I still say just ban marriage all together. Saves alot of grief for a lot of people. Why do you need a piece of paper to make your love more official? It's just stupid.

[SentinelMind]

You challenged to find in the constitution where it said you could....it doesn't

I challenged where you had a constitutional right to practice polygamy. We agree that isn't in there...which was my point...thanks.


...nor does it say you can't, or anything about single-spouse marriage either.


I never claimed it said anything specific about marriage.


If you knew there was nothing said about any of it in the constitution then don't bring up the constitution as some overpowering standard on it to begin with...as if to call something 'unconstitutional' when the opposite isn't precisely 'constitutional' either. Stick with the state issues specifically if that's what you want to discuss.

I never said it was unconstitutional to legalize polygamy. I said you don't have a right to practice polygamy and referenced document that grants us rights in this country. Please understand illegal <> unconstitutional and that making something legal doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to it. I was responding to somebody who claimed polygamy was a basic human right, which is utterly ridiculous. I had to reference the Constitution to present my federalist argument in the first place.

The burden is on the polygamy supporters to demonstrate to the state legislature that is beneficial to society to legalize polygamy. Based on the arguments in this thread, I don' t think we have much to worry about polygamy being legalized any time soon........for now.

[KalMart]

I challenged where you had a constitutional right to practice polygamy. We agree that isn't in there...which was my point...thanks.



I never claimed it said anything specific about marriage.



I never said it was unconstitutional to legalize polygamy. I said you don't have a right to practice polygamy and referenced document that grants us rights in this country. Please understand illegal <> unconstitutional and that making something legal doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to it. I was responding to somebody who claimed polygamy was a basic human right, which is utterly ridiculous. I had to reference the Constitution to present my federalist argument in the first place.

The burden is on the polygamy supporters to demonstrate to the state legislature that is beneficial to society to legalize polygamy. Based on the arguments in this thread, I don' t think we have much to worry about polygamy being legalized any time soon........for now.
http://forums.superherohype.com/images/smilies/55ms9.gif

......

Again, do you believe that marriage between only two people...which doesn't appear in the constitution, is a basic human right or not? If so then why not polygamy since it meets the same criterion? I didn't ask about state laws either. I asked how not appearing in the constitution (in favor or against) qualifies or disqualifies it as a basic human right?

[SentinelMind]

Saying something is a basic human right is suggesting a strong moral argument. What document or authority should we submit ourselves to outside the US Constitution?

[Anubis]

Penthouse Forum.

[KalMart]

Saying something is a basic human right is suggesting a strong moral argument. What document or authority should we submit ourselves to outside the US Constitution?

Does every moral argument require a document? The point that was being made is that as a moral issue, it addresses a lot of things that you probably won't find in a document like the constitution...so you can't point to it not being there as a moral argument against it...unless you can show how that somehow works against every moral argument that isn't in there.

So....once again....how do you view it, morally, as being ridiculous?

[WildcatNC]

You challenged to find in the constitution where it said you could....it doesn't...nor does it say you can't, or anything about single-spouse marriage either. If you knew there was nothing said about any of it in the constitution then don't bring up the constitution as some overpowering standard on it to begin with...as if to call something 'unconstitutional' when the opposite isn't precisely 'constitutional' either. Stick with the state issues specifically if that's what you want to discuss.

Its pretty useless man. He's not even logically consistent within his own argument. Everyone has different ideas about the world, but at least have some internally consistent logic about it. Don't just bounce around to whatever suits your narrative.

I still say just ban marriage all together. Saves alot of grief for a lot of people. Why do you need a piece of paper to make your love more official? It's just stupid.

This is a good idea. If you can find a church or other private institution to marry you to make you feel better, that is between you and the church. There should be NO government involvement in it either way.

[Thundercrack85]

Saying something is a basic human right is suggesting a strong moral argument. What document or authority should we submit ourselves to outside the US Constitution?

The bible, silly.

[KalMart]

They'd probably have to adjust a lot of things if they got rid of 'legal' marriage...like tax laws, etc.. And then who knows how divorce laws would turn out.

[WildcatNC]

The bible, silly.

AND here is the crux of the disagreement. :o

[Thundercrack85]

It's a curious thing. Marriage has lost all real meaning, yet people still value it. Guess people are just romantics deep down. Or self-deluded liars. Or both. And then there are the honest people who marry solely for tax reasons.

[The Question]

Just wanted to point out that you've yet to answer these questions:

1: Why is it a bad thing for there to be easy access to divorce? What if two people made a mistake when they got married, or one or both of them changes, or the relationship just turns out to be unhealthy? Why should they be forced to stay in that relationship? How is it better for a child to be raised by divorced parents than by parents in a loveless or distractive marriage?

2: What's wrong with single parenthood? Why should a parent be forced to stay in a bad relationship or remarry when their first one ends even if they can't immediately find the right person? How is it more harmful for a child to be raised by a single mother than to be raised by parents in a loveless and/or abusive marriage?

3: What's wrong with gay marriage? How is a gay couple less capable of raising a child than a straight couple?

4: How would the members of a polygamist union be less able to raise children than ones in a monogamous union? In some ways it's probably easier, more people to share the burden and all.

[Pagan]

People should be allowed to marry whoever they want as long as they are of age. As many as they want. Govt should have no say in this at all. If a woman wants to have 5 wives that's fine by me.

[SentinelMind]

Its pretty useless man. He's not even logically consistent within his own argument. Everyone has different ideas about the world, but at least have some internally consistent logic about it. Don't just bounce around to whatever suits your narrative.

There's a lot of whining but no substance in this post. Why not provide some specifics. You argued that polygamy is a basic human right but have yet to provide a source to discern this basic human right. You provided a moral argument yet whine that we shouldn't legislate morality. <---see that's logic right there, try it some time.

[SentinelMind]

People should be allowed to marry whoever they want as long as they are of age. As many as they want. Govt should have no say in this at all. If a woman wants to have 5 wives that's fine by me.

I'm glad you're not in charge.

Do you think an adult man should be able to marry both his father and adult sister?

[SentinelMind]

Does every moral argument require a document? The point that was being made is that as a moral issue, it addresses a lot of things that you probably won't find in a document like the constitution...so you can't point to it not being there as a moral argument against it...unless you can show how that somehow works against every moral argument that isn't in there.

So....once again....how do you view it, morally, as being ridiculous?

Wildcat's argument that "we shouldn't legislate morality" is inconsistent with his 'moral' unfounded argument that polygamy is a basic human right.

If there is no legal principle supporting his argument that polygamy is a basic human right, he's just throwing around some PC 'moral' argument that not everyone accept nor has to accept. The burden is on you to demonstrate that polygamy is a basic human right.

I think polygamy is immoral, but that's not only why I'm against it. Getting drunk on a friday night is immoral but I'm not in favor of banning that. Committing adultery is immoral but I'm not in favor of locking anybody up for that. Polygamy is a convoluted system that has far reaching implications throughout our entire legal system and development of children. It's harder to contain the impact of that vice to rest of society than saying getting drunk or having an affair. It affects everyone including those who are married. It impacts how institutions treat and value their existing marriage, not just morally but at a utility level.

[SentinelMind]

Just wanted to point out that you've yet to answer these questions:

1: Why is it a bad thing for there to be easy access to divorce? What if two people made a mistake when they got married, or one or both of them changes, or the relationship just turns out to be unhealthy? Why should they be forced to stay in that relationship? How is it better for a child to be raised by divorced parents than by parents in a loveless or distractive marriage?

2: What's wrong with single parenthood? Why should a parent be forced to stay in a bad relationship or remarry when their first one ends even if they can't immediately find the right person? How is it more harmful for a child to be raised by a single mother than to be raised by parents in a loveless and/or abusive marriage?

3: What's wrong with gay marriage? How is a gay couple less capable of raising a child than a straight couple?

4: How would the members of a polygamist union be less able to raise children than ones in a monogamous union? In some ways it's probably easier, more people to share the burden and all.




I'll give some brief responses bu to this but I should note that my responses to those questions are not directly related to this thread. I've given my arguments against gay marriage in other threads, I think a straight marriage couple is best environment to raise kids. That is the best institution that works and I don't like treating kids as a social experiment to justify someone's lifestyle.
One thing you can know about me is generally two things piss me off:

1. Kids getting thrown under the bus
2. Entitlement attitude

Decisions should be made on what works best for kids, not what makes adults with their personal life stories and agendas feel better.

I don't care how easy it is to get divorce, just pointing out that the easier it is, the less people will value their marriage or put little thought into getting married. I'm not advocating changing any law, just showing how laws can impact the value people put into marriage.

Ideally, I don't think children should be raised confused as to who their
father and mother is, and a polygamist system creates confusion.

[KalMart]

Wildcat's argument that "we shouldn't legislate morality" is inconsistent with his 'moral' unfounded argument that polygamy is a basic human right.

If there is no legal principle supporting his argument that polygamy is a basic human right, he's just throwing around some PC 'moral' argument that not everyone accept nor has to accept. The burden is on you to demonstrate that polygamy is a basic human right.
By this same measure, is single-partner marriage a basic human right?

I think polygamy is immoral, but that's not only why I'm against it. Getting drunk on a friday night is immoral but I'm not in favor of banning that. Committing adultery is immoral but I'm not in favor of locking anybody up for that. Polygamy is a convoluted system that has far reaching implications throughout our entire legal system and development of children. It's harder to contain the impact of that vice to rest of society than saying getting drunk or having an affair. It affects everyone including those who are married. It impacts how institutions treat and value their existing marriage, not just morally but at a utility level.

I don't really see how polygamy is immoral like drunken misbehavior or infidelity if the parties who engage in it do love each other and dedicate themselves to each other. I do think it's fraught wit more difficulty than monogamous marriages, but not innately an immoral act. I think the only thing that someone who is against polygamy on levels of basic human rights can do is throw out some biblical 'moral' argument that not everyone accepts nor has to accept. And we all know you can't create or deny laws based on that.

But...if I were, say, a devout Christian and believed that polygamy is immoral because the bible says so...I'd say so. It's certainly up to debate...and I wouldn't expect the law to be effected by that...but it's about as clear and personally accountable an answer that tone can give. I could actually respect that without agreeing with it. But that's just me...I don't really know if you or anyone is coming at it from the standpoint of religion or not.

Edit: just noticed your sig. Never mind. ;)

[SentinelMind]

By this same measure, is single-partner marriage a basic human right?

I don't think so, but I particularly don't care either way...we created the institution through democratic process and its hear to stay. Lot of things are legal and institutionalized without it being a "basic human right."



Edit: just noticed your sig. Never mind. ;)

yeah,uh...huh..."just noticed my sig"...after 2 paragraphs of insinuating that my personal opinion is just me trying to thrust some narrow biblical interpretation on society. Come on, you wanted to throw that in there...admit it. it was funny though. :oldrazz:

[Tanin]

I haven't touched a bible in 15 years and still remember John 3:16 word for word. Gah!

[KalMart]

I don't think so, but I particularly don't care either way...we created the institution through democratic process and its hear to stay. Lot of things are legal and institutionalized without it being a "basic human right."
Shouldn't polygamy be given the same chance of democratic process as well?

yeah,uh...huh..."just noticed my sig"...after 2 paragraphs of insinuating that my personal opinion is just me trying to thrust some narrow biblical interpretation on society. Come on, you wanted to throw that in there...admit it. it was funny though. :oldrazz:

In all honesty, seriously, I never noticed or read your sig and just noticed after writing that they were biblical passages. I know it probably looks weird. And I don't believe I've ever gotten into a religious discussion with you (until now, which probably helped point that out). But more to the point now that we're on it...I do think it's a bit myopic in a larger contemporary context, but as I said appreciable. That in mind, are you saying that's merely a minor or major part of it? And there's no insinuation with this...I'm actually asking.

For me, I don't think it's so much a basic moral problem as it is...how do I explain this...calling it something else, if you will. For some reason, I feel a need to distinguish it from marriage by definition, but not because it's somehow wrong or morally worse than a 'standard' marriage. Much like we still distinguish homosexuality from heterosexuality without sating one is more right or wrong (aside for those who religiously find it so, of course). Institutionally, it's obviously not as ubiquitous and there'd have to be a lot of new roads paved in society, so law will obviously have to come into play.

But again, as a specific moral right, I believe it is as is homosexuality with only really religious belief being its opposition.

[warhorse78]

.

This is a good idea. If you can find a church or other private institution to marry you to make you feel better, that is between you and the church. There should be NO government involvement in it either way.

This is what baffles me. Marriage, is more or less, based on religion, and I was in the belief that there is supposed to be this separation between church and state, so why is the government meddling into the affairs of couples? It's even more appalling, in several states, people who choose not to marry, after living with eachother for 7 years, are automatically considered married by the state. I don't understand this line of thinking. To me, it's just the government sticking it's nose where it don't belong.

However, in regards to this article, I am against people hiding behind religion as an excuse to abuse children, or eachother.

[Pagan]

This is what baffles me. Marriage, is more or less, based on religion.

No it's a vow between people. that came first. before the religious elements were added.

[WildcatNC]

There's a lot of whining but no substance in this post. Why not provide some specifics. You argued that polygamy is a basic human right but have yet to provide a source to discern this basic human right. You provided a moral argument yet whine that we shouldn't legislate morality. <---see that's logic right there, try it some time.

I provided my explanation and opinion. You ignored it. Once again, I consider it falling under the right to "liberty and pursuit of happiness". THAT is considered a basic human right by the constitution. Allowing others the room to live their life as they wish it not a moral argument. That's amazingly obtuse. YOU are the one that thinks everyone should define marriage in a way you approve of. I'm not making a case FOR or AGAINST polygamy, only peoples right to choose for themselves how to live. Allowing room for others morality is not forcing a single morality on anyone, which is what you approve of.

That isn't even mentioning the fact that marriage is nothing but a contractual agreement between consenting adults (or proxy in some cases) as far as any governmental issue is concerned. The church considers it also a "covenant" but that is irrelevant (see separation of church and state). On that subject anyway the very basis of the whole Man/Woman only marriage is religious in nature and shouldn't even be recognized as a requirement by the state in the first place if at all. It should be handled no differently than ANY other contract agreements. You can build a contract agreement with multiple individuals and its legally binding.

Whats a contract?

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241463.html

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Its all right there man. The rest is just religious sanctimony.


Wildcat's argument that "we shouldn't legislate morality" is inconsistent with his 'moral' unfounded argument that polygamy is a basic human right.

If there is no legal principle supporting his argument that polygamy is a basic human right, he's just throwing around some PC 'moral' argument that not everyone accept nor has to accept. The burden is on you to demonstrate that polygamy is a basic human right.

I think polygamy is immoral, but that's not only why I'm against it. Getting drunk on a friday night is immoral but I'm not in favor of banning that. Committing adultery is immoral but I'm not in favor of locking anybody up for that. Polygamy is a convoluted system that has far reaching implications throughout our entire legal system and development of children. It's harder to contain the impact of that vice to rest of society than saying getting drunk or having an affair. It affects everyone including those who are married. It impacts how institutions treat and value their existing marriage, not just morally but at a utility level.

Getting drunk? :dry:

Man, there is no "sanctity of marriage". Regular Male/Female partnerships have put all doubt about that to rest. It didn't take "gay marriage", "polygamy", "dogs marrying cats" or anything else to do that. Its all bull****. If it is for you then thats great. Its YOUR belief. Lets keep it that way.


Make no mistake, I would defend your right to believe anything you like and to enter into a consensual contract with any other adult, just as i'm defending others doing that to you. We should all be free, not just those who think like you. You have to put up with stuff you don't like or agree with to be in a free society.

The LAW though, should allow us ALL to live as we choose if its between consenting adults. It should NOT recognize a religious definition as legal requirement for contract agreements.

[SentinelMind]

I provided my explanation and opinion. You ignored it. Once again, I consider it falling under the right to "liberty and pursuit of happiness". THAT is considered a basic human right by the constitution. Allowing others the room to live their life as they wish it not a moral argument. That's amazingly obtuse. YOU are the one that thinks everyone should define marriage in a way you approve of. I'm not making a case FOR or AGAINST polygamy, only peoples right to choose for themselves how to live. Allowing room for others morality is not forcing a single morality on anyone, which is what you approve of.

Liberty and pursuit of happiness is not in the Consitution...it is in the Declaration of Independence...which provides the moral foundation to the victory Americans won against the British. Thus, stating you have a right to liberty and happiness is a moral argument. I'm not stating that I disagree with this, just explaining that you are making a specific moral argument to justify your position. BTW, what does the whole phrase say?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I guess by your argument I must acknowledge a Creator? Hmm...

I think its a big stretch to suggest that "pursuit of happiness" means that I must acknowledge your government-sanctioned, tax-credit relationship with ten wives.

[demitri_vampiro]

This is what baffles me. Marriage, is more or less, based on religion, and I was in the belief that there is supposed to be this separation between church and state, so why is the government meddling into the affairs of couples? It's even more appalling, in several states, people who choose not to marry, after living with eachother for 7 years, are automatically considered married by the state. I don't understand this line of thinking. To me, it's just the government sticking it's nose where it don't belong.

However, in regards to this article, I am against people hiding behind religion as an excuse to abuse children, or eachother.

marriage started as a religious act. nowadays in most countries the religion and state are separated, but government is also mingling in marriage because of the paperwork, i think. i guess it has to do with all the birthcertificates and different documents and thats why it is sometimes easier for couples to get married even if its not that important. for most people it is just a piece of paper, but it makes things easier administratively.