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.
Well as long as the other person isn't forcing them to sign, that is considered free will. How do you prove one person in a man/woman marriage isn't being forced into a marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Then they wouldn't be consenting adults. Are you saying there hasn't been coercive man/woman marriages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
do well I thought 1 and 2 allowed for number 3
Though we have several laws on the books that tell us when a contract is enforceable and what "sound mind and judgment is" i mean. . .this isn't a new worry
I would say. . .using standard laws and regulations regarding sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
aren't any male/female marriage preceded by a long history of coercive marriages where women were treated as property.
By this logic, should we not outlaw marriage in general due to their long and turbulent history of oppressing women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Some places had a long history of coercive two-person marriages as well; that history presented no impediment to enforcing laws against coercive marriages once they were enacted. I see no reason why polygamy would be different in this aspect.
I'll take these all together. First of all, I think it's funny (in whatever sense of the word you want to think of "funny") that a group of men is supporting the idea of polygamy among "consenting adults". Most women know there is no such arrangement, even those who haven't read much about polygamy. Yes, traditional marriage has a history of coercion, arranged marriage, etc. In observing my daughters' relationships with their spouse/fiance, I'd say even today, even among young, supposedly "aware" men, the guy tends to call the shots. But polygamy has a special place in male-female relationships.
This notion some people have that a polygamous marriage is simply a guy and several women deciding to live together and have sex together is erroneous. In general, a man takes a wife, then another, then another, etc over the years. Each wife is younger than the previous one. Eventually, the "wife" can be younger than the man's kids. I think you can put your imaginations to good use and look at the sexual ramifications of such arrangements. Each new wife alters the long-standing relationships of the adults to each other. Then there are the new babies from each marriage. And so forth. I take a very dim view of polygamy as presently practiced, and I don't know as legalizing it would change much.
Where in the world - among the many countries or the more than a dozen US states where same-sex marriage is legal - has polygamous or incestuous marriages been legalized?
Where?
Nowhere...yet.
But the same was said not to long ago about same-sex marriage. Don't sit there and tell me it won't happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Same-sex marriage opponents are endless sources of some of the most illogical, factually-bereft 'arguments' that can be had - a natural result of not actually having any substantive arguments to make.
But the same was said not to long ago about same-sex marriage. Don't sit there and tell me it won't happen.
The can of worms is more than slightly ajar.
I'll sit here and tell you it won't happen...You may as well say we'll soon be able to marry ducks, or vegetables... That is how ridiculous your statement is.
I'll sit here and tell you it won't happen...You may as well say we'll soon be able to marry ducks, or vegetables... That is how ridiculous your statement is.
Oh please....you know no such thing.
40 years ago people would have thought a man marrying another man, legally, would have been about the ridiculous, unfathomable thing in the world.
So what will happen in the next decade, half-century...etc...etc, no one on this board can foretell, including yourself.
Funny thing is, most other states do not have cohabitation laws, and polygamy is not legal in those states. Why would polygamy become legal in one state when they drop cohabitation laws, but not in all of the others where there are no cohabitation laws?
I'm not referring to merely this law. I'm talking about the foundation for resisting the legality of polygamy.
The argument against gay-marriage, is that the government does not have the right to enforce "morality". The resistance to polygamy is also a matter of morality.
If you argue that the government has no right to enforce morality. And thus it must allow same-sex marriages.
Then it has no right to enforce morality in regards to polygamy either. And thus it must allow polygamous marriages.
Thus, if you have any consistency whatsoever. Then polygamy should be legal.
You can make all the excuses in the world for why its different. You can claim that polygamy is harmful and that people who enter it have some psychological disorder. But that is the same exact argument people have made against homosexuality, which has been overturned.
Where are all the liberals screaming for joy? I guess there aren't many voters in that block so they don't really care so never mind. Typical liberals.
I just read about this, in the future could you email me to alert me about these things so that I can come in and make a comment for you so that you can satisfy your liberal fill for the day.
That is good to see a judge standing up for individual rights, even if the state of Utah wish to try and deny people of those rights.
I'm not referring to merely this law. I'm talking about the foundation for resisting the legality of polygamy.
The argument against gay-marriage, is that the government does not have the right to enforce "morality". The resistance to polygamy is also a matter of morality.
If you argue that the government has no right to enforce morality. And thus it must allow same-sex marriages.
Then it has no right to enforce morality in regards to polygamy either. And thus it must allow polygamous marriages.
Thus, if you have any consistency whatsoever. Then polygamy should be legal.
You can make all the excuses in the world for why its different. You can claim that polygamy is harmful and that people who enter it have some psychological disorder. But that is the same exact argument people have made against homosexuality, which has been overturned.
It is only a matter of time my friend.
I have never argued that the government doesn't have the ability to enforce morality, neither has any case I have read. Most argue based on the 14th amendment. Equal protection of the law.
I have no problem with polygamy if that is what consenting adults choose, but the current legal structure of marriage will not work for more than two people. IF the legal structure were changed to fit more than two, then go for it, as long as everyone is a consenting adult it is none of my business.
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.
People should worry about their OWN damn morality, and staying out of other people's lives.
