Why should polygamy be illegal?

[tyr_13]

No, the other is based on biological gender which is equally protected from discrimination by the law.

While true, that doesn't make them the same. Cars and trucks follow many of the same laws, yet the license plate is different. Don't confuse what I'm saying, your argument is a perfectly valid reason for allowing gay marriage. However, it does get taken too far as the same reasoning applied to say, affirmative action, seems over-reaching.

 

[ponderingturtle]

While true, that doesn't make them the same. Cars and trucks follow many of the same laws, yet the license plate is different. Don't confuse what I'm saying, your argument is a perfectly valid reason for allowing gay marriage. However, it does get taken too far as the same reasoning applied to say, affirmative action, seems over-reaching.

The car truck designation is not a protected class, sex is. To prevent same sex marriage you need to discriminate based on sex. If you did not discern the sexes involved you couldn't do it.

Remember that in spite of how people use it to discriminate is not pejorative, it is just that people tend to not apply it to discrimination that they think is right.

 

[tyr_13]

The car truck designation is not a protected class, sex is. To prevent same sex marriage you need to discriminate based on sex. If you did not discern the sexes involved you couldn't do it.

Remember that in spite of how people use it to discriminate is not pejorative, it is just that people tend to not apply it to discrimination that they think is right.

"Your argument is a perfectly valid reason for allowing gay marriage."

 

[politas]

Yes, yes, and yes, but only once. Why is that so hard? It's equally applied. Can a straight man marry a gay man? Sure, but obviously he shouldn't be able to also marry a woman he loves.

Why "obviously"? I don't think that's obvious at all.

Certainly there are some laws that would need to be adjusted, but the only one I can really see as being problematical is the immigration issue. For anything related to financial benefits, just divide the benefits up evenly between the spouses, on the presumption that all spouses had/have equal reliance on the partner's earning capacity. Sure, it adds some complexity, but it is certainly workable.

For immigration, I don't know. Is there a limit to the number of children that can be brought into the country? If so, then add one to the limit and remove the distinction between spouses and children. If not, then why is bringing twelve children into the country less of a problem for society than bringing in three spouses?

And aren't there provisions for bringing extended family members into the country, too?

 

[quarky]

If I was a social Darwinist, I'd argue that polygamy has been instrumental in the evolution of humans. The most 'successful' males prevent less successful males from reproducing.

Imagine the sorry state of animal husbandry if we applied the same morality to it that we insist on with human reproduction?

 

[AWPrime]

But far from invariably, and modern Euro-American culture has demonstrated otherwise.

Can you expand on that? I find this sentence to be vague.

 

[Uncayimmy]

That was also the finding of anti miscegenation laws before loving vs virginia. As they effected blacks and whites equally they were not discriminatory.

It must have been those activist judges who found otherwise.

Prior to that the court's attitude was, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

It took another court finally saying, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification." Thus there was no rational basis for the law.

And there is another difference. Race (ignoring the issues around definition) is who a person is. One cannot change races. Polygamy is something one wants to do.

It could be though, if you are allowed to slice a cows neck open to kill it ritually to make meat you can eat. It just seems that the jews have a better lobby than the dog sacrifice religion.

Yep.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Prior to that the court's attitude was, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

It took another court finally saying, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification." Thus there was no rational basis for the law.

And there is another difference. Race (ignoring the issues around definition) is who a person is. One cannot change races. Polygamy is something one wants to do.

But this was about gay marriage not polygamy, and interracial marriage is something someone wants to do, not something someone is.


So it defined marriage as being between two people of opposite sex, and the same race. It is not unfairly discriminatory as it effects everyone equaly.

The argument is the same when used about gay marriage.

Poly marriage is different because many of the laws that define what marriage is and now who can get married depend on it being two people.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But this was about gay marriage not polygamy, and interracial marriage is something someone wants to do, not something someone is.

What do you mean by this when you say "this" is about something? The thread is about polygamy. The race thing was brought up specifically in regards to polygamy but alongside gay marriage.

The Loving case didn't say that there was a broad right to marry whom you want. It said that the choice couldn't be restricted by race. We recognize race as not being a choice, which is why it is consider "wrong" to discriminate on that basis.

So it defined marriage as being between two people of opposite sex, and the same race. It is not unfairly discriminatory as it effects everyone equaly.

The argument is the same when used about gay marriage.

Gay marriage is another discussion entirely. The general consensus on polygamy is that it is a choice. The picture is murkier on gay marriage. Being of a certain race is not a choice, and it is expressly protected.

But to be quite honest, I have no idea what point you're trying to make or refute.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What do you mean by this when you say "this" is about something? The thread is about polygamy. The race thing was brought up specifically in regards to polygamy but alongside gay marriage.

The Loving case didn't say that there was a broad right to marry whom you want. It said that the choice couldn't be restricted by race. We recognize race as not being a choice, which is why it is consider "wrong" to discriminate on that basis.

And the point is that previous challenges had said that as it applied to blacks and whites equaly there was nothing unfair about anti miscegintion laws.

Gay marriage is another discussion entirely. The general consensus on polygamy is that it is a choice. The picture is murkier on gay marriage. Being of a certain race is not a choice, and it is expressly protected.

Except that you said "the anti-polygamy and anti-gay-marriage laws affect everyone equally." So you brought up gay marriage, and the point is that this was the logic used to permit laws against miscegenation.

And sex is a expressly protected class, and the discrimination is based on sex explicitly to create discrimination against sexuality.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And the point is that previous challenges had said that as it applied to blacks and whites equaly there was nothing unfair about anti miscegintion laws.

Except that's not what they said. They said there was a rational basis for it which trumped the incidental harm.

Except that you said "the anti-polygamy and anti-gay-marriage laws affect everyone equally." So you brought up gay marriage, and the point is that this was the logic used to permit laws against miscegenation.

They do affect everyone equally. See above. There still needs to be a rational basis.

And sex is a expressly protected class, and the discrimination is based on sex explicitly to create discrimination against sexuality.

I am not going to discuss homosexuality and gay marriage in this thread in any more detail than I have thus far. I'd rather say that than just ignore your comment.

 

[Skeptic]

Not to mention all of the historical examples throughout Asia and the Middle East.

Yes, the ancient Near East and Asia -- that bastion of feminism and women's right.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, the ancient Near East and Asia -- that bastion of feminism and women's right.

Because lord knows there's nothing wrong with generalizing entire continents in a pejorative manner.

 

[Z]

Someone wake me up when I'm allowed to marry myself. Nothing else compares.

 

[luchog]

Unlikely look at the rise of the nuclear family, it was a response to the death of the extended family.

Going to have to correct that. It wasn't a response to the death of the extended family; but rather, a concurrent phenomenon resulting from industrialization, and the migration of individuals from rural "homestead" environments to atomized urban environments.

 

[luchog]

Yes, yes, and yes, but only once. Why is that so hard? It's equally applied. Can a straight man marry a gay man? Sure, but obviously he shouldn't be able to also marry a woman he loves.

Why not? What objective reason can you propose that would validate the first two but invalidate the last? No one has yet provided a single valid reason for this position. The responses are invariably "too complicated for the government to allow" and "OMG IS OPPRESINGZ WIMINZ!!!" I fail to see the validity in either one. The first proposes that the government is not only a discrete entity, but that it has rights and privileges that supercede those of individual citizens. Something which is patently untrue. The latter supposes that the only possible model of polygamy is religious polygyny which reduces women to the status of chattel; also demonstrably untrue.

There are several examples of huge obvious problems with recognizing multiple marriages all through this thread.

I haven't seen any valid ones. Point them out.

If you believe that the government has no place recognizing marriage, argue that. It's a perfectly reasonable stance. To argue both it and that polygamous marriage should be recognized is odd to say the least.

Your reading comprehension is failing, since that is precisely what I and others have been arguing.

To say that what the government believes is in the best interest of the people isn't always in the best interest of the people is true. That is not to say that it is always wrong!

Point out where someone made that claim, otherwise it's a complete non-sequitor.

Why do some deserve recognized and others don't? Have you skipped all the absolutely practical reasons? Those being things like medical decisions, inheritance, gift taxes, insurance allocation, witness immunity, etc.

These have all been addressed.

Having a marriage recognized is not a civil right. Equal protection under the law is. That is why the examples you listed are essentially a list of non-sequitors.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong again. Freedom of association is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Freedom of conscience is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Marriage is a civil right. Marital privileges are not. Our current laws infringe the aforementioned rights in order to maintain special privileges for a particular class of people. A violation of Constitutional protections on equality under the law.

If govermnent must be in the business of recognizing marriages and assigning privileges (which, as I and others have said numerous times, it shouldn't); then it must recognize all marriages between competent consenting adults, or it must recognize none of them. By selecting which marriages it will approve of, it creates a privileged class that receive benefits that are not accorded to those of lower status. It essentially creates an population of second-class citizens who are deprived of equality of treatment under the law.

 

[luchog]

Sounds good except for one thing: the anti-polygamy and anti-gay-marriage laws affect everyone equally. Everyone of legal age is allowed be married to one person of the opposite sex at a time. It's not discriminating against a group because they want to do something and can't so long as everyone is equally prohibited.

This is absolute and complete bullcrap.

First, by that argument, segregation is not discrimination. Blacks and Hispanics anbd Asians are perfectly free to open their own businesses and libraries which whites aren't allowed to patronize, just as they're not allowed to patronize white establishments. The races are equally segregated, therefore it's not discrimination. Your comments put it back to "seperate but equal". Except, when you look at it, it's not even that equal.

Second, it's a flat-out, bigotted LIE that anti-gay-marriage affects everyone equally. It doesn't. Not even slightly. Because it only affects homosexuals.. It doesn't affect heterosexuals at all, because they still have full freedom of association, and all the government granted privileges that go with marriage. Homosexuals are denied those same privileges, for the sole fact that their homosexual. They're reduced to second-class citizen status. They're not free to marry, therefore they're not equal to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are granted special privileges that are denied to homosexuals; a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee to equal status under the law. The same applies to polygamists.

Explain how this is rational. Explain how this is not merely the result of religious domination of government.

For true equality, all must be granted the same status under the law. Either all have the privilege of marriage, or none do. That is the only way it can possibly be equal.

 

[luchog]

Legally speaking, no. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the Constitution and a lot of case law. Demanding legal recognition and special privileges for any particular type of relationship you want is not. It's a public policy decision, which is the prerogative of the government (or not, if you're a strict libertarian).

Lex Dei? Sorry, I don't buy that. Government is the servant of the people, and has no perogatives or perquisites beyond those which are accorded to all citizens.

They don't, and, unlike gays, their rights are already being respected.

No, they're not, which you admit to.

If you're asking why polygamous relationships deserve less recognition than monogamous ones, this thread is filled to the brim with excellent reasons.

Point one out. All I've seen so far is appeal to authority, non-sequitor, argumentum ad consequentiam, argumentum ad baculum, and unproven assertions.

Yes, as long as its to one person at a time,

What? That's like saying that black people are allowed to eat at white establishments, as long as they're white. Like saying homosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex (like others here, namely tyr_13, are saying).

In English, polygamy is marriage to multiple people at the same time. Marriage to one person at a time is "monogamy". The one is not the same as the other. I shouldn't have to explain this.

So, in plain English, your answer is no, they don't have the right to be respected. Why are you so afraid of plainly admitting that?

there are no reasons to regard them as different except for irrational ones based mostly on religion.

Others have claimed differently.

Monogamous marriage and polygamy are fundamentally different: socially, legally, and practically.

1) An unsupported assertion. Explain how they're differnet socially and practically. The legal issue is irrelevant, since laws can be changed, which is what this entire thread is about.

Just think about everything we've talked about in this thread, all the money, all the legal and regulatory nightmares we'd have to endure to even begin to reconcile our current government and social system with polygamy. It would fundamentally redefine American family life. It is not equivalent.

Argumentum ad consequentiam. And patently untrue, as has already been demonstrated.

A semantic distinction that's never made sense to me. People have what rights they can defend.

So, someone who cannot defend his right to life, doesn't have one? Someone who cannot defend his right to private property, freedom of speech, or freedom of association, does not have those rights? Screw the minorities, if they deserved to be treated like the rest of us, they'd be able to defend themselves. Argumentum ad baculum.

 

[luchog]

So you are now for getting rid of many things that treat married people as a couple instead of two room mates? You seem to be dismissing many of those effects.

Because many of them are unwarranted privileges that can be easily granted with a civil contract.

The problem is not that it is civil, it is that it is a contract, and not a status. As a status marriage is a bundle of effects that taken together make sense, when you break up the effects and permit them to be worked into any contract, there is all kinds of potential for abuse.

Semantic nonsense. It's still a contract, it's merely a single, standardized contract enforced by government. And it's not even entirely standardized; since marriage laws vary by state.

And what is the "potential for abuse", and how is it any worse than creating an underclass who is denied the same rights and responsibilities as the privileged class.

 

[luchog]

They can get the same amount of recognition, that of one partner as primary.

Seperate but Equal, is not equality.

They do, it is that they do not have the number they wish to marry recognized. Because marriage as it stands does not fit multiple partner relationships well.

They do, except that they don't. Why are you and toddjh so evasive about admitting that there is a distinct restriction here.

What about recognition for non equal realtionships, in that person A has a primary partner of B and a secondary partner of C. Why does C need to be recognised.

Why are you so insistent on creating hierarchies? Why can't you accept equality, or admit the lack thereof? Not all polyamourous relationships are hierarchical, no reason why polygamous ones would need to be.

Why do sexual relationships deserve recognition and others not?

Non sequitor. No one has made that claim.

There will always be arbitrary dividing lines between what relationships get legal recognition and what ones don't.

Why?

Again the only thing you seem to have proposed in a positive sense is opening up all marriage rights to any contract that wants to invoke that right.

Then you're not reading what I'm saying.

The problems here is that race and sex are protected classes, number of people is not. It is perfectly OK to discriminate based on the number of people, see things like fire code and the like.

Sex is not a protected class. Homosexuals are denied the same rights as heterosexuals.

Then there are no rights. They also apparently have the right to make things harder and more expensive for everyone else as well.

Non sequitor. Argumentum ad consequentiam.

Provide evidence that polygamy would create a significant hardship for non-polygamists.