An example of lack of restraint?
Only if it is not consented to by the wife who carried the first child.
You don't seem to understand that there are people out there who WANT to live this way. You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.
Yes, that has occurred, but because it has occurred in some cases, does not mean it occurs in all cases. This should not be the basis to deny this legal recognition to polygamous unions.
And that already happens with men who have children outside of wedlock.... or have children in extramarital affairs.If the two families are going to live in separate households, and the man is the "breadwinner", then his resources will be split.
What people want is of no import and it has nothing to do with any man's authority
The govt discriminates against single people by providing benefits to married people. In order to be legally justified, such discrimination must be based on a societal benefit. The govt can't just decide that it likes married people more so it will give them benefits and priviliges.
A two person marriage does provide a number of societal benefits. I am unconvinced that the same can be said of plural marriages. If it can be shown that the govt has a legitimate interest in encouraging plural marriages (by conferring benefits to them) them I'd be all for doing so. So far, I have yet to see it.
Sorry, I don't follow. I don't see how this relates to what I've said.So then, you are saying that the government has more of a right than the individual to discriminate against someone based upon "eww icky gheys!!"
This isn't relevant to the point that was being made. The constitution may protect a right to be treated equally under the law, it does not protect a right to be treated equally under the roof of a private business.People have a right to be treated equally under the law. If a business chooses to be open to the public we have entered a legal discussion.
And that already happens with men who have children outside of wedlock.... or have children in extramarital affairs.
So, not a justification for denying equal legal recognition to polygamists.
I see where you are going... and I believe you are going there out of an assumption that polygamists are just marrying for the sake of benefits and are not going to co-habitate. (I base this off of your alluding to the societal benefits of 2 person marriage and your previous post).
Polygamists are co-habitating as I type this. Also, many people marry and then do not end up co-habitating, hell people in the military marry other people in the military at different bases just so they can both benefit from the.. well... BENEFITS, that being a married person in the military brings.
And yet....
This is not a reason to deny legal recognition to 2 person couples.... and it shouldn't be used to deny legal recognition to polygamy either.
Including those of you that blindly worship antidiscrimination to such an extent that you would gladly trample any civil liberties that dare to defy that god.And thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the self righteous imposing their religious beliefs on the public at taxpayer expense.
I guess you are just desperate, or perhaps that is the best you can do!
You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.
The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.
How can you have an equal partnership with polygamy? That is the crux of a modern marriage. Polygamy is going backwards.
It is none the less true. Polygamy stems from a time when women were subjugated and treated as inferior. We have advanced from that primitive behavior and I see no reason to go back to it.
There is no need to justify denying polygamists equal legal recognition. Polygamists need a justification for providing them with the benefits legal recognition provides.
No, it has nothing to do with why polygamists are marrying (or want to marry). It has to do with the effects of allowing it. If doing so benefits society, I'm all for it. If not, then I'm not for it.
Yes, people co-habitate without being married and people who are married don't always co-habitate. However, it's clear that marriage (of two people) has many societal benefits and co-habitation is just one of many. Even if they don't co-habitate, there are the benefits of stability and commitment for the children. Marriage also unites extended families which leads to greater social cohesion. So therefore, the govt has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples
The question is not "How can the govt deny legal recognition to plural marriages?" The question is "How can the govt justify providing benefits for plural marriages?" The only legitimate answer to that question is "because plural marriages create societal benefits". Until it is shown that plural marriages do benefit society (and there's a lot of anthropological research showing that it harms society) I can not support it.
Nope. Bigots on the left will try to stop this from happening, but their bigotry will fail. When my sister and I show up looking for a marriage license is when their heads will explode.
So because polygamous couples are not LIKE YOU they lack "restraint"????
Isn't "restraint" a subjective term?
Is it your goal to subject others to live by terms YOU see fit for them to live.. when it has no bearing on YOUR rights?
If a government employee wants to practice their belief and do gods work during work hours, then let god pay his/her salary instead of the tax payers.Including those of you that blindly worship antidiscrimination to such an extent that you would gladly trample any civil liberties that dare to defy that god.
Only if it is not consented to by the wife who carried the first child.
You don't seem to understand that there are people out there who WANT to live this way. You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.
Yes, that has occurred, but because it has occurred in some cases, does not mean it occurs in all cases. This should not be the basis to deny this legal recognition to polygamous unions.
Nor would anybody be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if gay couples simply stayed home and stopped asking for stuff.Nobody would be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if the government employee just minds their own business and does the job they are paid to do.
Nor would anybody be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if gay couples simply stayed home and stopped asking for stuff.
But, since they've all got a right to be there, we may as well follow the law and accommodate those with sincere beliefs the best we can while making sure the office provides all services required of it.
You're kidding, right? Are you saying that you couldn't place equal percentages to any combination of people?
Tim-
Again... you aren't supporting any reason to deny Freedom to a group of people who CHOOSE to live in this manner.
How do you know that?
You have no evidence either way...
The priviliges and benefits of marriage are legally justified by the societal benefits of marriage. It could be argued that plural marriages do not confer those societal benefits and so the state has no legal basis for providing benefits to them.
That's a rather bigoted comment, don't you think?Nor would anybody be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if gay couples simply stayed home and stopped asking for stuff.
I suspect the vast majority of people in this country are perfectly capable of separating their religious belief from their job. So I see no reason why the government should accommodate those few government employees that can't. Using religion to discriminate and oppress another group people is not a government protected right for anyone.But, since they've all got a right to be there, we may as well follow the law and accommodate those with sincere beliefs the best we can while making sure the office provides all services required of it.
Not to mention Christians have been violating their own religious tenements for decades before, without a blink of an eye.That's a rather bigoted comment, don't you think?
I suspect the vast majority of people in this country are perfectly capable of separating their religious belief from their job. So I see no reason why the government should accommodate those few government employees that can't. Using religion to discriminate and oppress another group people is not a government protected right for anyone.
Not to mention Christians have been violating their own religious tenements for decades before, without a blink of an eye.
Remarriage after divorce to a different woman is a sin.
Yes, rather. But it's only there to make light of the one you made.That's a rather bigoted comment, don't you think?
That's true whether it's the religious person being oppressive or it's the religious person being oppressed. That's why we have an establishment clause and a free exercise clause.Using religion to discriminate and oppress another group people is not a government protected right for anyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?