[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
You’re not aware of this issue in Third World countries?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
The fact of the matter is that there will be very few men capable of having a polygamous marriage. Only the really wealthy can do this and really most women do not see any economic benefit from this sort of arrangement anymore. Woman are, after all, allowed to be more than just a carrier of man’s seed these days.[/quote]
In most cases, the desire for polygamous marriage is likely due to religious/cultural rather than economic reasons.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Again. When?[/quote]
Uh, say for example, when states first passed laws recognizing marriage, which were perceived to be in the general interest of society?
Are the questions you are asking serious?[/quote]
What personal rights were overridden, as you have claimed, (the ones the constitution protects) when marriage was recognized?
Is your example serious?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
The fact of the matter is that there will be very few men capable of having a polygamous marriage. Only the really wealthy can do this and really most women do not see any economic benefit from this sort of arrangement anymore. Woman are, after all, allowed to be more than just a carrier of man’s seed these days.[/quote]
In most cases, the desire for polygamous marriage is likely due to religious/cultural rather than economic reasons.[/quote]
Is you crazy?
Yes it was/is defended by some religious institutions but they do nothing more than solidify what has always been seen as legitimate for economic reasons (which could mean nothing more than the scarcity of “acceptable” gene pools to swim in).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What personal rights were overridden, as you have claimed, (the ones the constitution protects) when marriage was recognized?[/quote]
The right to have a polygamous relationship recognized on equal footing. And the negative right not to have government recognize and privilege any relationship over another.
Is your example serious?[/quote]
Sure is - don’t forget that (some) states used to require by law that people belong to a church, even as late as the 1830s.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What personal rights were overridden, as you have claimed, (the ones the constitution protects) when marriage was recognized?[/quote]
The right to have a polygamous relationship recognized on equal footing. And the negative right not to have government recognize and privilege any relationship over another.
Is your example serious?[/quote]
Sure is - don’t forget that (some) states used to require by law that people belong to a church, even as late as the 1830s.[/quote]
Again, what individual right is being overridden? There is no right to have the government legitimize your marriage. I’m not seeing it. Can you point that out in the constitution?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What personal rights were overridden, as you have claimed, (the ones the constitution protects) when marriage was recognized?[/quote]
The right to have a polygamous relationship recognized on equal footing. And the negative right not to have government recognize and privilege any relationship over another.
Is your example serious?[/quote]
Sure is - don’t forget that (some) states used to require by law that people belong to a church, even as late as the 1830s.[/quote]
Again, what individual right is being overridden? There is no right to have the government legitimize your marriage. I’m not seeing it. Can you point that out in the constitution?[/quote]
Which state’s constitution?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which state’s constitution?[/quote]
We were discussing the federal one.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which state’s constitution?[/quote]
We were discussing the federal one.[/quote]
Not exactly, I said:
Uh, say for example, when states first passed laws recognizing marriage, which were perceived to be in the general interest of society?
Kamui’s point was that the lawmaking bodies had a right to pass things in the public interest, such as marriage (and only one kind of marriage was in the general interest, not alternative versions of it). You’ve disputed that this is so. I said that states handle legislation on recognizing marriage and states have the ability to pass laws in the general interest (and always have).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
The fact of the matter is that there will be very few men capable of having a polygamous marriage. Only the really wealthy can do this and really most women do not see any economic benefit from this sort of arrangement anymore. Woman are, after all, allowed to be more than just a carrier of man’s seed these days.[/quote]
In most cases, the desire for polygamous marriage is likely due to religious/cultural rather than economic reasons.[/quote]
Is you crazy?
Yes it was/is defended by some religious institutions but they do nothing more than solidify what has always been seen as legitimate for economic reasons (which could mean nothing more than the scarcity of “acceptable” gene pools to swim in).[/quote]
My point was that even lacking the economic reasons, polygamists would still exist due to their cultural/religious convictions.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which state’s constitution?[/quote]
We were discussing the federal one.[/quote]
Not exactly, I said:
Uh, say for example, when states first passed laws recognizing marriage, which were perceived to be in the general interest of society?
Kamui’s point was that the lawmaking bodies had a right to pass things in the public interest, such as marriage (and only one kind of marriage was in the general interest, not alternative versions of it). You’ve disputed that this is so. I said that states handle legislation on recognizing marriage and states have the ability to pass laws in the general interest (and always have).[/quote]
"a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.
in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.
and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?” "
No, he stated that the overriding principal of a republic was common interest. And that personal rights are overridden by that public interest. This is completely wrong.
I stated the constitution allows for public interest to be served as long as it doesn’t interfere with individual rights, but the ultimate law of our constitutional republic is individual rights codified by the constitution.
You claimed they do that all the time, but have yet to provide any example.
Public interest is NOT the litmus test for a law in a constitutional republic. Period. Kamui, was completely wrong.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
"a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.
in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.
and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?” "
No, he stated that the overriding principal of a republic was common interest. And that personal rights are overridden by that public interest. This is completely wrong.
I stated the constitution allows for public interest to be served as long as it doesn’t interfere with individual rights, but the ultimate law of our constitutional republic is individual rights codified by the constitution.
You claimed they do that all the time, but have yet to provide any example.
Public interest is NOT the litmus test for a law in a constitutional republic. Period. Kamui, was completely wrong.[/quote]
We’re talking past one another, I don’t disagree with what you are saying. My point is that laws in the common interest override what people refer to as their rights all the time.
My point was primarily that the space that lots of people claim are covered as “rights” are no such (like your point that there is no right to marriage, on which I agree) and lawmaking bodies are free to enact policy in the public interest in that space.
We don’t disagree that the public interest is constrained by individual rights - I’m just saying the space claimed as “individual rights” by alternative marriage advocates (and others) and hard-core libertarians isn’t what they think it is (and never has been).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
"a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.
in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.
and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?” "
No, he stated that the overriding principal of a republic was common interest. And that personal rights are overridden by that public interest. This is completely wrong.
I stated the constitution allows for public interest to be served as long as it doesn’t interfere with individual rights, but the ultimate law of our constitutional republic is individual rights codified by the constitution.
You claimed they do that all the time, but have yet to provide any example.
Public interest is NOT the litmus test for a law in a constitutional republic. Period. Kamui, was completely wrong.[/quote]
We’re talking past one another, I don’t disagree with what you are saying. My point is that laws in the common interest override what people refer to as their rights all the time.
My point was primarily that the space that lots of people claim are covered as “rights” are no such (like your point that there is no right to marriage, on which I agree) and lawmaking bodies are free to enact policy in the public interest in that space.
We don’t disagree that the public interest is constrained by individual rights - I’m just saying the space claimed as “individual rights” by alternative marriage advocates (and others) and hard-core libertarians isn’t what they think it is (and never has been).
[/quote]
Alright, sounds like we are on the same page.
[quote]forlife wrote:
My point was that even lacking the economic reasons, polygamists would still exist due to their cultural/religious convictions.[/quote]
Everything we do is because of culture (which even supersedes religion).
Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, but I’m just soooo excited. Bigotry would have only one last bastion in the realm of human relationships. Once we’ve got SSM, polyamorous marriages, and non-marital romances on equal grounds, we could move to the aid of non-marital, non-romantic relationships! Death to discrimination![/quote]
“Hi, I’m Jay and this is my heterosexual, life partner Silent Bob…”
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean we’ll get back into it. We kept practicing polygamy even after it was illegal, and not just in Canada and Mexico.
Personally, I think it’s more legitimate than homosexual marriage, having been practiced in some form by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon. Not exactly a line of b-listers (though to be fair, David isn’t the best example, and Solomon screwed up after a while).
Personally, I think the way they’re approaching it now is fine- don’t get involved in our bedrooms type of thing. As long as all of the women aren’t collecting gov’t funds (like a lot of Utah polygs do) I don’t have a problem.
[quote]Saint Ace wrote:
Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, but I’m just soooo excited. Bigotry would have only one last bastion in the realm of human relationships. Once we’ve got SSM, polyamorous marriages, and non-marital romances on equal grounds, we could move to the aid of non-marital, non-romantic relationships! Death to discrimination![/quote]
“Hi, I’m Jay and this is my heterosexual, life partner Silent Bob…”
:)[/quote]
Hey, if you’re life long bachelors some of those privileges could come in handy!
So maybe this has been said, maybe not.
Does anybody have a problem with a man married to one women with 2+ others in co-habitation with them?
How is this different than the biblical stories of kings with one wife and many, many concubines?
Just curious.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
So maybe this has been said, maybe not.
I do. That was easy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
So maybe this has been said, maybe not.
I do. That was easy.[/quote]
Cause they be hoggin teh weminz?