Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you really think that mass numbers of guys not being able to get laid is going to end well? Thats about as boiled down and as simple as I can make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
How exactly? As far as I know children from polygamous families(Man or Woman living with multiple men/multiple woman in a polygamous setting) still commit less crime than those from families with single moms worldwide.
Whether I have been through a divorce or not or not married does prove the equality under that law right or wrong. You made a fallacious statement.
It was not a fallacious statement and not meant to prove or disprove your fallacious statement that
making polygamous marriage legal equates to equality under the law.
Marriage is between two people. Any person, with specific exceptions, can marry another person. Exceptions being for example age, consent, current martial status. Exception once covered race and gender but in any event it was equal to all under specific exceptions.
I forgot to reply to the second part. Based on my views, to raise a family and share life with my partner. I do live a monogamous life but I also do not allow my views to go against equal treatment under the law even if that means some lifestyle I do not agree or like.
One does not need to be legally married to raise a family and share life with a partner. So why does one wish to marry?
The US government should not be in the business of licensing marriages. Marriages should be private contracts on the terms the parties choose, on the religious, secular or mix of the both basis they personally choose.
Governments have always been in the business of recognizing marriages because having rules about marriage and inheritance provides order to society. In the past, most governments were theocratic; they had one official state religion and all other religions, if they were even allowed, were subordinate, so the official state church kept marriage records by default. In many countries, you couldn't marry if you were not a member in good standing in the state church.
The Founding Fathers changed that by including freedom of conscience in the First Amendment. Apparently you think tossing freedom of conscience out is a good idea.
The Founding Fathers changed that by including freedom of conscience in the First Amendment. Apparently you think tossing freedom of conscience out is a good idea.
I'm glad that we can agree that poly-marriage should be allowed, since First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, any religion.
And if you don't like the First Amendment... Well, Constitution is not the Bible, it can be changed. Go for it.
One does not need to be legally married to raise a family and share life with a partner. So why does one wish to marry?
Me and my wife did not married officially. The only problem with that is taxes. We need to file 2 separate tax returns, but in fact, that might have its own benefits Anything else - can be dealt with General Power of Attorney, or owning property together, or a will (in terms of inheritance). Generally speaking, if you consistently call your lady a wife, there are very few places where your claim would be questioned.
As I think about it, the only place where official marriage recognition is needed, is court system. Specifically jail visitation rights reserved only for officially married couples. And protection from criminal prosecution reserved for wives only for refusing to witness against husbands (although, I guess, I guess anyone can plead 5th).
Most marriage laws and restrictions are more involved with money than sex. I have no objection to marriage or not with any number of partners so long as there is some provision for taking care of the children and the sick.
I agree with Old Gringo; sometimes one wife is too much. Sometimes just right.
Most marriage laws and restrictions are more involved with money than sex. I have no objection to marriage or not with any number of partners so long as there is some provision for taking care of the children and the sick.
In most states as far as I know, a man doesn't need to be married to a women, in order to be sued for child support. As far as taking care of the sick... If it's not done by a free will, it's not enforceable with a regular marriage either.
Again, your views do not support equal treatment under the law if three or more want to share life together and raise a family. It is irrelevant what most American believe or that ancient societies accepted it. I am focusing on equal treatment under the law.
No, you really are not. Your creation of this thread and your responses are simply attempts to revisit the absurd conservative arguments against same sex marriage, as this post by you underscores:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
I agree that the word marriage should be out of the law books. The church should marry people and the state has a legal tab for benefits purposes.
Your bright idea certainly doesn't provide "equal treatment under the law" for those people who don't belong to "the church" as apparently defined by you, now does it? So much for the farce of "equal treatment under the law".
Sorry, but laws against polygamy absolutely do support equal treatment under the law. You're problem is that you want to define "equal treatment under the law" as "I can do anything I want to do". Well, if it's not illegal, you pretty much can, but you can only have 1 spouse because having 2 or more at the same time is illegal in every state. It's called bigamy. Because the state you live in says that you can live with as many adult spouses as you want but only 1, the one named on the marriage license, is recognized, and you can't get another marriage license until you prove that your previous legal marriage has been dissolved. You can move to any state in the Union, and you'll face the very same situation. You can't get much more equal than that.
The state governments have a right to decide what constitutes marriage within their jurisdictions, and they have unanimously decided that a legal marriage shall consist of 2 people who are both old enough to give consent. In all states, there's a minimum age to marry without parental consent. In some states, there's a lower age to marry with parental consent. All states prohibit sibling marriages.
The federal courts became involved in marriage law when states didn't recognize as legal marriages between 2 people performed legally in other states. That people of different races who were legally married in one state weren't considered legally married in some other states resulted in bans on interracial marriage being declared null and void in 1967 by the SCOTUS. That people of the same gender could be married in New York or Massachusetts but their marriages wouldn't be legal in Indiana or in Georgia resulted in the SCOTUS declaring that any 2 consenting adults could marry and that states had to recognize that by issuing marriage licenses. That's "equal treatment under the law": if you're legally married in one state, you're legally married in every state.
If you want to get polygamy legalized, get some state to make it legal for somebody to be married to 2 or 3 or 300 or 3000 spouses at the same time. Of course, that's not really your agenda. You just want to "prove" that recognizing same sex marriages is an evil thing.
Is it? Considering at least 2 mass shootings have had to do with failed courtship of women and I can vaugly think of a few more. There was that guy at the university and another one that shot up a yoga class full of women.
No having one guy with 10 women when there are already too many men in this country is a dangerous proposition.
Are you saying that polygamy is a marriage philosophy that applies ONLY to Muslims?
I do hope your answer is no.
Are there Americans that believe polygamy should be legal?
I do hope your answer is yes.
It seems you that your biases surfaces because I have repeatedly stated that I am focusing on the philosophical/constitutional angle regarding polygamy.
Also, I do not know the specifics of the examples you cited. I will answer based on assumptions. Tell me the specific shooting and what you know of the reasons for them.
In the present monogamous marriage is the only legal avenue. The last statement you made does apply in this country also apply from what I can see. However, what are the dangers you mention?
The last question is this: Because of these dangers you see, it is a valid to negate equality of lifestyle choice to others that do not think the same you do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anything else - can be dealt with General Power of Attorney, or owning property together, or a will (in terms of inheritance). Generally speaking, if you consistently call your lady a wife, there are very few places where your claim would be questioned.
