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.
Isn't it more so the tax/economic issues, in addition to the inevitable inequality of the multiples in the marriage?
Good point, but what issues would it create that we couldn't get around with legislation? Certainly administrative inconvenience is not a good excuse for regulating people in a way that seems to not really fit into the First Amendment.
Quote:
Hammertime has pointed it out before, but if a military veteran married multiple women, he would get multiple spousal bonuses that 2 person couples don't get.
Again a good practical concern, but it is one that can be fixed, and even so, is it really a "compelling state interest." If those women weren't married to and getting benefits from that spouse, why wouldn't they be married to another and get the same benefits? Doesn't it all total out the same? Aren't we providing the same level of benefits to all married spouses regardless of whether they are in a monogamous marriage or not?
Quote:
I think the legal and financial challenges are the big issue. Although I agree with you, I view someone who would to as rather insane, but that's because I'm a jealous person and could never share my partner.
I'm just playing devil's advocate. There's some evidence out there that child abuse and other unsavory things are associated with polygamy, but it's hard for me to see those things as a result of polygamy per se rather than just the kind of cults that currently practice it.
I'm not sure you would see those kinds of problems with polygamy outside a "cult" setting.
Adam and Eve were the first marriage. It was like that for some time before multiple wives were allowed--largely as a way of providing for women who could not find a man because men had been killed in battle or otherwise.
No, actually incest and polygamy were supported in the Bible immediately. Certain Incestuous relations were not banned for the Israelites until Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However, polygamy and some incest was still very much the norm in the Bible. Solomon had 700 wives and hundreds of concubines. David had multiple wives, and God offered him even more if he wanted them.
Adam and Eve are allegorical representations of humanity. Adam means "mankind", literally. It does not refer to a single human.
Quote:
No "luck" involved. I had ample evidence to leave her in the past 15 years....and she could have kicked me out on my ear for being a jerk. but we both chose to love each other.
And apparently you don't believe gays deserve to love anyone or be loved. Were they cursed by God?
I can think of lots of social reasons to oppose polygamy, but really, not many legal reasons. I do think it could be difficult for one man plus several wives, some of whom might be pregnant and/or nursing small children, to support a pack of kids. That might be an area where the law would have to step in.
Wrong, the sister-wives step in, no need for gov't intrusion.
So it's okay for you to be a monogamist,
but not for me to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Alrightie, then.
It's perfectly fine for you to believe that.
It's not perfectly fine for you to use the government to force other people to abide by it, absent some independent compelling state interest.
I do not think just because I am monogamous, that everyone should be. I certainly don't think it's my prerogative to make it into a law restricting other people's choices based on my own.
How so? Marriage was first defined as 2 people, 1 male--1 female.
There is neither verifiable evidence nor a reliable source as for the "first" marriage in mankind's history. The origins of marriage are distorted and diluted. However, this does not preclude the fact that throughout most of history, polygamy and polyamory were commonplace.
Royal family's throughout history would have multiple wives, or at the minimum one wive and multiple mistresses. This ensured that there would be suitable royal offspring to continue the family name.
Now, we cannot use it for verifiable or reliable evidence for absolute facts, but the stories of polygamy in the Bible indicate that such social constructs were not seen as abhorrent or abnormal. If it were indeed the case that the marriage of Adam and Eve was seen as the only true marriage, then it would be seen as a terrible thing for Abraham to take three wives or for David to take 18 of them. Again, I'm not using as fact, but as a tool for understanding the basics of social constructs of the time period(s) it was written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Interestingly, we automatically associate polygamy with one man having more than one wife. One woman having more than one husband is even harder for most people to accept.
Ideally, yes, but the human-animal balance is not the same for all humans
That's because polygyny is a lot more commonplace than polyandry.
There isn't any. If it does not have to be 1 man and 1 woman, then it does not have to be "1". And it does not have to be "consenting" either. Dogs and cats don't "consent" to be our pets. Why should we need their consent to be our marriage partners?
It's not perfectly fine for you to use the government to force other people to abide by it, absent some independent compelling state interest.
I do not think just because I am monogamous, that everyone should be. I certainly don't think it's my prerogative to make it into a law restricting other people's choices based on my own.
We legislate morality all the time. That argument is weak.
Interestingly, we automatically associate polygamy with one man having more than one wife. One woman having more than one husband is even harder for most people to accept.
Ideally, yes, but the human-animal balance is not the same for all humans
I did actually think about that, but just decided to express it from my male point of view.
Why female polygamy is so rare is an interesting issue .
If polygamous groups were allowed to contract civil marriages, then I'd plan to help out all the illegals here in the US. I'd marry all 12 million of them so that they can be here legally (spousal immigration visas).
We legislate morality all the time. That argument is weak.
Not if you understand it.
Some things we cannot constitutionally legislate absent a compelling state interest. Morality legislation is possible and it does happen, but only because it is coincidental to a compelling state interest.
Laws that prevent porn from getting into the hands of kids are a good example. They legislate morality in a sense, but their constitutional basis is to avoid exposing kids to material that could be or is assumed to be harmful to them in light of their age and lack of capacity to behave responsibly.
That does not mean that our states have laws on the books that are seriously unconstitutional. Some of these laws (like blue laws) still exist only because no one has gotten around to challenging them yet, or they are just on the books but legally unenforceable as a result of court decisions.
Florida has a "criminal libel" law for example. Any first year law student will know that those two words just do not belong together in light of the First Amendment. The law is on the books still, but it's invalid. No one tries to enforce it, because they can't.
Hence blue laws that still exist out in the sticks.
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.
