The Polygamy Scandal

[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.