Now that legal marriage is unequivocally a fundamental right, it would seem he no more needs to offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt it, then he needs to offer a coherent argument as to why the country should allow him free speech. The burden of proof is now squarely on government to provide a compelling interest as to why it will not allow polygamists to exercise their fundamental rights.I don't have to shown anything, until you offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt plural marriage, when even the moron faith has outlawed the practice.
Whether you intended to or not, you just put forth a major correlation/causation fallacy. Polygamy is practiced in many countries where is it not legal, just without the legal paperwork thus making no conflict between the poly family and the government. In some places there were other laws that tried to cover that bypass, such as Utah's cohabitation laws, which were finally shot down.
You also have another major logic fail. We weren't the first country to allow interracial marriage. We weren't the first country to allow SSM. But we were fighting for those rights when other countries made them legal. Thus the fight goes on and whether the US is first or not remains to be seen. But the goal is not to be first with polygamy, but to get it passed.
Now that legal marriage is unequivocally a fundamental right, it would seem he no more needs to offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt it, then he needs to offer a coherent argument as to why the country should allow him free speech. The burden of proof is now squarely on government to provide a compelling interest as to why it will not allow polygamists to exercise their fundamental rights.
Thank you for rightly admitting that polygamy does not work economically the way the systems are currently designed.
Polygamy is a choice. It is learned behavior, taught in certain sects and those are the only places that it exists. Therefore there is no moral obligation to accommodate it, unless you can demonstrate one.
But remember this, the Mormon Faith long ago outlawed polygamy, so there is NO institutional support for polygamy in the US:
The concept that is was a move forward is a subjective one. And no I would not classify it as a move backwards either. It was simply a change in how things were done, when looked at objectively. We had a set of laws against interracial marriage, SSM, for slavery, Jim Crow laws. Obviously live with them was not an acceptable argument, so why should it be so here?So if the Mormons moved forward to monogamy long ago, what is the moral imperative to justify the learned behavior of polygamy? We have a set of laws, live within them.
Loving more looks like a nice little club, not an institution. An institution would have a great many members, not just a few.Define institutional support. Because Loving More might disagree with you.
maquiscat said:The concept that is was a move forward is a subjective one. And no I would not classify it as a move backwards either. It was simply a change in how things were done, when looked at objectively. We had a set of laws against interracial marriage, SSM, for slavery, Jim Crow laws. Obviously live with them was not an acceptable argument, so why should it be so here?
History shows otherwise. You are being far from realistic about it. I provided a rationale for why polygamy should not be legalised, and it is a legitimate one, so if you want to legalize polygamy then that is irrelevant to the facts. I am not going to try to convince people that polygamy should not be legalised, only dismiss the baseless notion that it is the same as same-sex marriage.
It's one data point, in an area without a lot of data. Do you dispute that Mr. Brown's family has 22 people? I only used the show to demonstrate ONE thing, the SIZE of their family and if it is correct, then the show fulfills that specific mission PERFECTLY.
Do you have reliable statistics to show how many polygamist families there are in the US, and what their average family size is. I notice you are not providing ANY data, while criticizing mine. I await your authoritative data.
You made a very specific claim that allowing polygamy would significantly increase the average size of the american household. Back up your claim.I don't have to shown anything, until you offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt plural marriage, when even the moron faith has outlawed the practice.
It is exactly the sample I want to see and we are out there. We don't all live in communities like the FLDS do. I live in a typical small city in MD just south of DE. It is a conservative area (despite MD being mostly liberal). So it's not like we announce our family to the whole city. We do have alt lifestyle friends of various ilk with whom we can be open with. I personally know another poly unit up near Baltimore. If you look at the links I provided in post #29, you can see that those of us who are not FLDS are all across the country. And very few of us believe in the abuse the FLDS of the Jeffery's ilk do. Hell there are even some independent FLDS who denounce what those in the compounds do. I honestly want to see such studies and if I knew who to talk to and could get the money I'd start one.Show me. You have no proof. And anyhow, where else would there be a large representation of polygamist families in the US, outside of the FLDS? It seems this is EXACTLY the sample you want to see.
Wow that line sounds like we're trying to eliminate monogamy. I would hope that monogamy would remain for a very long time. And yes there are many other groups, such as NAMBLA who want to ride on any coattails they can, be it SSM or poly, to obtain their objective. Just like the gays had to fight to disassociate themselves with the pedophile, because quite honestly there are gay pedophiles, so will polys have to fight that same thing, because quite honestly there are polys who are also pedophiles.Fallacy or not, I hope you realize that most of the posters on this board are talking about polygamy not because they endorse it but because they don't like the ruling on SSM and are trying to us polygamy as a "slippery slope" argument against SSM. Polygamy has a very bad name here as the practice been abused by pedophiles in very well publicized cases and they are attempting to equate those with gays and SSM. Don't fall into their trap and start believing that crap. We are no closer to making polygamy legal than before the ruling. The custom of marriage being between 2 people that love each other is likely to remain for a very long time.
What amazes me about all of this is how we have been hearing all the stupid slippery slope arguments coming from the homophobes for years about gay marriage paving the way for polygamy, incest, child abuse, bestiality and who knows what only to have posters arrive making damn well sure to confirm their fears.
You would almost think it was by design.
Wow that line sounds like we're trying to eliminate monogamy. I would hope that monogamy would remain for a very long time. And yes there are many other groups, such as NAMBLA who want to ride on any coattails they can, be it SSM or poly, to obtain their objective. Just like the gays had to fight to disassociate themselves with the pedophile, because quite honestly there are gay pedophiles, so will polys have to fight that same thing, because quite honestly there are polys who are also pedophiles.
...and so it begins.
It is exactly the sample I want to see and we are out there. We don't all live in communities like the FLDS do. I live in a typical small city in MD just south of DE. It is a conservative area (despite MD being mostly liberal). So it's not like we announce our family to the whole city. We do have alt lifestyle friends of various ilk with whom we can be open with. I personally know another poly unit up near Baltimore. If you look at the links I provided in post #29, you can see that those of us who are not FLDS are all across the country. And very few of us believe in the abuse the FLDS of the Jeffery's ilk do. Hell there are even some independent FLDS who denounce what those in the compounds do. I honestly want to see such studies and if I knew who to talk to and could get the money I'd start one.
It *sounds* good, if you're the one, but yeah...:lamo
I can't work out why anyone would want to complicate their life this badly. "Two's company..." is not just an idle saying.
How wide spread homosexuality was, was skewed for quite a while as people hid their orientation. Much like people hid their love and attraction for those outside their skin color. And a preference for a skin color is certainly more of a choice than orientation. It's only recently, relatively speaking that people have been coming out more regularly and at younger ages. So I fully expect more and more polys going public in much the same way the homosexuality did. And much in the same ways that gays have been fighting for progress so will we. Interracial, same sex and poly marriages are not the same but they have many of the same arguments against them, and they have progressed in society in much the same patterns.I respect your right to live your life as you see fit, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You also need to respect the law of the land. You say you have felt this way for a long time, but in the situation of gays, the field of psychiatry noted the widespread nature, its natural psychological root for those gays, and stated we should not try to "convert" the gay but rather society needed to change. I don't find any such support for your position. When it comes to laws, they exist to set boundaries, and in many cases regulate legal boundaries. I just don't see the parallel to the situation of gays. You can live however you chose, you just don't get access to all the benefits that marriage confers, nor the legal protections. That is the way gay couples did it in the past.
It *sounds* good, if you're the one, but yeah...
Then that would not have been an exception to the general rule and not fallen under my statement, correct? Correct.Once again the false presumption that there will be one gender that is alone. In my marriage there are two of each
It *sounds* good, if you're the one, but yeah...
Then how can you explain why no other nation that has adopted SSM has done the same for polygamy? Why would we be the first? It is nothing but sour grapes talking. Don't play us for fools.
Because of the legal argument used to legalize SSM. You don't have to legalize polygamy based on the US justification for SSM, the SCOTUS decision stripped away any solid definition of the word marriage.
Why should you or anyone else care if polygamy does become legal? What possible effect does it have on your life? Most people still won't be doing it and the ones that do were living together anyway. Why do we have to jump from one group to another trying to impose our will on them instead of just letting people live as they choose? Got Freedom?
When our citizens have rights and the freedom to live their lives as they choose, society benefits greatly. If we banned Christians (or whatever you identify with) from marrying, would that make America more or less free?
Because of the legal argument used to legalize SSM. You don't have to legalize polygamy based on the US justification for SSM, the SCOTUS decision stripped away any solid definition of the word marriage.
What’s in the same-sex marriage ruling - The Washington PostA second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
...
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
...
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.
Why wasn't that true in any of the other countries? Stop dodging the question.
My argument is not silly, you just fail to understand the gay marriage issue. Perhaps you would like to state why the supreme court should NOT have made it legal across the land. I will explain why they did make it legal. The characteristic of being gay is possessed by a large percentage of the worlds population and it always has been. Estimates vary from 5 - 10% of the population, both male and female. That would make being gay a normally observed human variation in the population. Normal is not bad. You may not understand it, you may not like it, you don't have to. But we all need to respect these peoples dignity as humans. If you think we were made by god, god doesn't make any junk. From the point of view of the state, marriage is not about romantic love, it is about legal rights and responsibilities; rights that people get to enjoy because they chose to commit to a relationship for life, and responsibilities they must live up to within the marriage and afterward if the marriage does not survive. If being gay in a normal human variation in a substantial part of the population, why should those people be denied the right to marry the person they chose?
The mental health community states that being gay is normal, and we should not try to change the gay person, rather we should change the society so it does not view gay people as wrong or in need of being changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
So, for correct reason, society has changed to recognize that being gay is a normal human variation, and these people should be entitled to all the rights that anyone else is entitled to. The supreme court has ordered the society to change, and that is good.
But we are still in the realm of "one person marrying another person", or two in the marriage. There is no change to SS, because if the people were not gay and married a hetero partner they would pay in to cover that person, they pay into SS anyway, and so their gay partner is already covered, unless you can show that SS presumed a certain percentage of gay people who would not be covered.
I await your reasons why polygamy should be allowed.
It provides greater security and stability for the children of same sex couples
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?