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.
Time will tell, of course. It's only a matter of time, in my opinion, that polygamy will be legalized. I can't imagine why it would not be, based on the arguments given for ssm.
Time will tell, of course. It's only a matter of time, in my opinion, that polygamy will be legalized. I can't imagine why it would not be, based on the arguments given for ssm.
What arguments for SSM apply equally to polygamy? It's worth asking because so many issues cannot be applied equally. Examples include inheritance, Social Security survivors, spousal health benefits, etc. These things apply to a two person marriage. Applying them to a marriage of more that two people would not be an equal application of the law.
What arguments for SSM apply equally to polygamy? It's worth asking because so many issues cannot be applied equally. Examples include inheritance, Social Security survivors, spousal health benefits, etc. These things apply to a two person marriage. Applying them to a marriage of more that two people would not be an equal application of the law.
If I'm not mistaken, the argument for ssm was made that a person ought to be able to act on how they identify. If they self-identify as homosexual, the ruling was that they should able to be happy and be married to the person that they choose-- such as someone of the same gender.
Using that argument, one must conclude that a bisexual person MUST be allowed to pursue happiness in marrying 2 people of opposite gender, or a man that simply does not feel fulfilled by 1 wife must be allowed to have multiple wives.
As for the questions of inheritance, social security survivors, etc...so what? Are you suggesting that the ease of application of those things to same sex marriage is the only reason to allow it?
I'm sorry--I'm not sure if it would be correct to say that they were part of the actual ruling on same sex marriage, but it is the diseenting opinions of the SCOTUS judges.
"Justice Roberts warned that today's ruling was not comparable to striking down laws against interracial marriage, because at no time was the ethnicity of the spouses considered a defining factor of marriage itself.
He also warned that by changing the fundamental definition of marriage, the justices had opened the door to redefining other vital components of matrimony. “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage,” he wrote."
And:
"“If a bare majority of justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent."
We opened that "slippery slope" when we allowed Judges like Roberts to become our Politically Elected Kings. With such an unthoughtful rebuttal, it's a wonder why the SCOTUS isn't understood as shameful by all the People.
"at no point was marriage considered defined by ethnicity"??? Wrong. It was not defined by ethnicity in any known government of the USA, but it was by a large and powerful sub-population of segregationists.
By his slippery slope reasoning (why he is even in... oh yeah, politics), then ending slavery was equally "opening the door" for the end of all property rights.
What another SHAME within our SCOTUS are these logically low-level opinions.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-19-2015 at 01:33 PM..
What arguments for SSM apply equally to polygamy? It's worth asking because so many issues cannot be applied equally. Examples include inheritance, Social Security survivors, spousal health benefits, etc.These things apply to a two person marriage. Applying them to a marriage of more that two people would not be an equal application of the law.
It's a myth that those things only apply/work in a two person contract. Plural marriage has been around since antiquity.
It's a myth that those things only apply/work in a two person contract. Plural marriage has been around since antiquity.
Exactly since before and through Hebrew times, through Abraham and by Abraham.
It depended on the desert you lived in, where 1 man to many wives might have been important for the survival under high infant mortality or barren female rates and such other factors.
Greek kings had plural marriages up to a point in time, the Jews fought for their rights to plural marriages in 70CE. Romans beloved their publicly monogamous relationships (but some still naturally sought after exceptions as if they were sheep).
CULTURE UPON CULTURE, LIARS FOR AND BLINDED BY THEIR CULTURES, DESPERATE TO SANCTIFY THEIR SOCIETIES' NEEDS.
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.