The Polygamy Scandal

[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.

......

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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?

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.