LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[frigidweirdo]

How much does it cost a male/female couple to not procreate?

How much for a same sex couple?

Seems to me the burden remains on the hetro couple ALWAYS

And, again remind me how the two are remotely the same?

How much what? Money? What the hell are you talking about?

What burden?

How are the two remotely the same? Well, it's none of you business what a man and woman get up to in the bedroom and it's none of your business what a man and another man get up to in the bedroom, and it's none of your business what a woman and another woman get up to in the bedroom.

Seems pretty much the same to me.

However, I have no idea if you're making an argument or just verbally throwing up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your argument seems to be that any individual should be allowed married status, even without a partner. That any number of individuals should be able to marry.

Sorry, I disagree on it's base.

Very good you've combined the non sequitur (""it does not follow") fallacy and the strawman fallacy ("ignore an actual statement, construct something different, then argue against that") into one post.


#1 Yes I believe any legally competent individual should be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage unless their is a compelling government interest to deny them that equal treatment under the law. So far non has been presented in the 15 (or so) years that I've watched the issue.

#2 It is logically impossible for for someone to enter into Civil Marriage without someone else to agree, so the "even without a partner" statement isn't very logical.

#3 There are compelling reasons why polygamy won't work as a function of government for secular reasons, however it will be up to polygamists to argue their case and for the government to make it's case. The two issues (SSCM and Poloygamy) have nothing to do with each other.

#4 You've continue to make the "procreation" argument even though there are couples that have to prove they can't procreate before being allowed to Civilly Marry.



>>>>

You accuse him of fallacies and then agree with his characterization of your views.
The business about a procreation test is a canard. It isn't that anyone is proposing a test. It is simply fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples produce children. Thus the state has a compelling interest in promoting such relationships over relationships that characteristically and generally do not.
Once you make the argument for gay marriage then you've made the argument that marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, including polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous.

 

[Silhouette]

You accuse him of fallacies and then agree with his characterization of your views.
The business about a procreation test is a canard. It isn't that anyone is proposing a test. It is simply fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples produce children. Thus the state has a compelling interest in promoting such relationships over relationships that characteristically and generally do not.
Once you make the argument for gay marriage then you've made the argument that marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, including polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous.

Exactly. Putting that into legal terms means that a man and woman marrying who cannot produce children do not interfere with the legal qualifications put out as incentive. They qualify even if they don't prove out because they belong to the proper combination the state is seeking to encourage procreation and parenting by natural blood kin.

And yes, instantaneously upon any great granting of gay marriage will come the the same for polygamy. You cannot use "consenting adults in love" to change the base definition of marriage against the will of the governed and then turn around and say "except when it comes to polygamy because "that's icky" [etc.]". The 9 Justices know full well that any mass granting of gay marriage against the will of the states means precisely the same legal access to any other conceivable grouping of "consenting adults in love". For that matter, in today's world of "sex sex sex sex sex", love isn't even a requirement...

 

[Pop23]

Your argument seems to be that any individual should be allowed married status, even without a partner. That any number of individuals should be able to marry.

Sorry, I disagree on it's base.

Very good you've combined the non sequitur (""it does not follow") fallacy and the strawman fallacy ("ignore an actual statement, construct something different, then argue against that") into one post.


#1 Yes I believe any legally competent individual should be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage unless their is a compelling government interest to deny them that equal treatment under the law. So far non has been presented in the 15 (or so) years that I've watched the issue.

#2 It is logically impossible for for someone to enter into Civil Marriage without someone else to agree, so the "even without a partner" statement isn't very logical.

#3 There are compelling reasons why polygamy won't work as a function of government for secular reasons, however it will be up to polygamists to argue their case and for the government to make it's case. The two issues (SSCM and Poloygamy) have nothing to do with each other.

#4 You've continue to make the "procreation" argument even though there are couples that have to prove they can't procreate before being allowed to Civilly Marry.



>>>>

You accuse him of fallacies and then agree with his characterization of your views.
The business about a procreation test is a canard. It isn't that anyone is proposing a test. It is simply fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples produce children. Thus the state has a compelling interest in promoting such relationships over relationships that characteristically and generally do not.
Once you make the argument for gay marriage then you've made the argument that marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, including polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous.

That was an excellent review of my stand.

The argument that tradition means something is lost on them until tradition bolsters their views.

In a world of same sex marriage I ask why the tradition of "two" has any validity. The reason two even exists is that is combine one of each gender into a single unit. One plus one equals two. That single unit contains everything required to move the species forward, providing population.

Same sex marriage is the combination of 1 of the same gender to a member of the same gender INCAPABLE of moving the species forward or providing population. The need for the unit to include two is nonsense. A same sex relationship can include 50,000 it changes nothing.

No same sex couple has ever produced a single child within their unit, yet the sales job is that they must be equal even though male/female units are REQUIRED to have population in the first place.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Very good you've combined the non sequitur (""it does not follow") fallacy and the strawman fallacy ("ignore an actual statement, construct something different, then argue against that") into one post.


#1 Yes I believe any legally competent individual should be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage unless their is a compelling government interest to deny them that equal treatment under the law. So far non has been presented in the 15 (or so) years that I've watched the issue.

#2 It is logically impossible for for someone to enter into Civil Marriage without someone else to agree, so the "even without a partner" statement isn't very logical.

#3 There are compelling reasons why polygamy won't work as a function of government for secular reasons, however it will be up to polygamists to argue their case and for the government to make it's case. The two issues (SSCM and Poloygamy) have nothing to do with each other.

#4 You've continue to make the "procreation" argument even though there are couples that have to prove they can't procreate before being allowed to Civilly Marry.



>>>>

You accuse him of fallacies and then agree with his characterization of your views.
The business about a procreation test is a canard. It isn't that anyone is proposing a test. It is simply fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples produce children. Thus the state has a compelling interest in promoting such relationships over relationships that characteristically and generally do not.
Once you make the argument for gay marriage then you've made the argument that marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, including polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous.

That was an excellent review of my stand.

The argument that tradition means something is lost on them until tradition bolsters their views.

In a world of same sex marriage I ask why the tradition of "two" has any validity. The reason two even exists is that is combine one of each gender into a single unit. One plus one equals two. That single unit contains everything required to move the species forward, providing population.

Same sex marriage is the combination of 1 of the same gender to a member of the same gender INCAPABLE of moving the species forward or providing population. The need for the unit to include two is nonsense. A same sex relationship can include 50,000 it changes nothing.

No same sex couple has ever produced a single child within their unit, yet the sales job is that they must be equal even though male/female units are REQUIRED to have population in the first place.

I can understand being against same-sex Civil Marriage as non-traditional (I disagree that it should be illegal, but I can understand the argument).

However polygamy is very traditional, been around for thousands and thousands of years and it practiced in many societies even today. So if the basis of the argument is "tradition" they you are in full support of polygamy, right?


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

You accuse him of fallacies and then agree with his characterization of your views.
The business about a procreation test is a canard. It isn't that anyone is proposing a test. It is simply fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples produce children. Thus the state has a compelling interest in promoting such relationships over relationships that characteristically and generally do not.
Once you make the argument for gay marriage then you've made the argument that marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, including polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous.

That was an excellent review of my stand.

The argument that tradition means something is lost on them until tradition bolsters their views.

In a world of same sex marriage I ask why the tradition of "two" has any validity. The reason two even exists is that is combine one of each gender into a single unit. One plus one equals two. That single unit contains everything required to move the species forward, providing population.

Same sex marriage is the combination of 1 of the same gender to a member of the same gender INCAPABLE of moving the species forward or providing population. The need for the unit to include two is nonsense. A same sex relationship can include 50,000 it changes nothing.

No same sex couple has ever produced a single child within their unit, yet the sales job is that they must be equal even though male/female units are REQUIRED to have population in the first place.

I can understand being against same-sex Civil Marriage as non-traditional (I disagree that it should be illegal, but I can understand the argument).

However polygamy is very traditional, been around for thousands and thousands of years and it practiced in many societies even today. So if the basis of the argument is "tradition" they you are in full support of polygamy, right?


>>>>

Polygamy is not traditional in western societies like ours.

 

[Pop23]

You accuse him of fallacies and then agree with his characterization of your views.
The business about a procreation test is a canard. It isn't that anyone is proposing a test. It is simply fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples produce children. Thus the state has a compelling interest in promoting such relationships over relationships that characteristically and generally do not.
Once you make the argument for gay marriage then you've made the argument that marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, including polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous.

That was an excellent review of my stand.

The argument that tradition means something is lost on them until tradition bolsters their views.

In a world of same sex marriage I ask why the tradition of "two" has any validity. The reason two even exists is that is combine one of each gender into a single unit. One plus one equals two. That single unit contains everything required to move the species forward, providing population.

Same sex marriage is the combination of 1 of the same gender to a member of the same gender INCAPABLE of moving the species forward or providing population. The need for the unit to include two is nonsense. A same sex relationship can include 50,000 it changes nothing.

No same sex couple has ever produced a single child within their unit, yet the sales job is that they must be equal even though male/female units are REQUIRED to have population in the first place.

I can understand being against same-sex Civil Marriage as non-traditional (I disagree that it should be illegal, but I can understand the argument).

However polygamy is very traditional, been around for thousands and thousands of years and it practiced in many societies even today. So if the basis of the argument is "tradition" they you are in full support of polygamy, right?


>>>>

Not at all, but it makes more sense than same sex. Multi partner, differing gender units combine all the components required to replenish the species.

 

[Pop23]

How much does it cost a male/female couple to not procreate?

How much for a same sex couple?

Seems to me the burden remains on the hetro couple ALWAYS

And, again remind me how the two are remotely the same?

How much what? Money? What the hell are you talking about?

What burden?

How are the two remotely the same? Well, it's none of you business what a man and woman get up to in the bedroom and it's none of your business what a man and another man get up to in the bedroom, and it's none of your business what a woman and another woman get up to in the bedroom.

Seems pretty much the same to me.

However, I have no idea if you're making an argument or just verbally throwing up.

In the demographics it is very important to me that male/ females combine. Their offspring will care for me as I become elderly. Their offspring will contribute to my social security payments.

The opposite is not true. Do you not get that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals see people as liabilities.
Conservatives understand people are resources.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the demographics it is very important to me that male/ females combine. Their offspring will care for me as I become elderly. Their offspring will contribute to my social security payments.

The opposite is not true. Do you not get that?

It has nothing to do with anything. Like has already been said. You don't demand that straight couples wanting to marry can have children and will have children. Also, you don't prevent women who have gone through the menopause from marrying, you don't prevent the infertile marrying.

ie, the requirement to marry has NOTHING to do with producing children.

Also, if everyone can marry the consenting adult of their choice, it doesn't reduce the number of children being born. Not ONE BIT.

You're trying to claim it's not in your interest that gay people marry. Do I give a damn about YOU? No. It's not YOUR interests we're looking at here.

What we're looking at is fairness under the law.

 

[Seawytch]

In the demographics it is very important to me that male/ females combine. Their offspring will care for me as I become elderly. Their offspring will contribute to my social security payments.

The opposite is not true. Do you not get that?

It has nothing to do with anything. Like has already been said. You don't demand that straight couples wanting to marry can have children and will have children. Also, you don't prevent women who have gone through the menopause from marrying, you don't prevent the infertile marrying.

ie, the requirement to marry has NOTHING to do with producing children.

Also, if everyone can marry the consenting adult of their choice, it doesn't reduce the number of children being born. Not ONE BIT.

You're trying to claim it's not in your interest that gay people marry. Do I give a damn about YOU? No. It's not YOUR interests we're looking at here.

What we're looking at is fairness under the law.

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

 

[Silhouette]

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

I have:

1. Setting an example for kids to "emulate and feel is OK" of the type of sex that HIV is spreading rampantly from and infecting a sudden spike in boys ages 13-24.

2. Mental illness in the LGBT crowd: Why are lipstick lesbians attracted to mannish women who wear strapons? And "top" gay men attracted to effeminant "bottoms"? There is such an obvious streak of closted heterosexuality in the gay population that is unexplored, unexamined and buried deep but obvious for all healthy people to see that people exhibiting mental issues that are quite profound like these...and wanting to amputate healthy organs to play-act the opposite gender/reject their own gender ... Deep deep mental illness is obvious. You don't normalize that via the iconic vehicle of marriage. It sends the wrong impression to kids about what society as a whole values as "normal".

3. LGBT functions as a cult. It has a strong recruitment presence now in public schools [evangelizing], it has indocrinated as a matter of law that minors cannot get reparative therapy on their own until they're 18, even when molestation was the event they trace to where their compulsive homosexuality began..yet multiple outreach groups encourage "bi curious" kids to "come out" to parties thrown as lures to tempt them into the fold. Heretics are punished [Anne Heche/Mozilla Firefox/Pope Benedict etc.] Their messiah Harvey Milk who so very recently over 60+ LGBT groups across North America had a postage stamp dedicated to the LGBT movement, had as his sexuality the sodomizing of orphaned teen homeless boys, mentally ill and further damaged by drug abuse. One after the other..


There are a thousand excellent reasons why LGBT marriage should not be. Pick any one you like. Add your own here.

Should they be persecuted? No. The mentally ill need help and understanding. Should we promote this behavior and its resulting cult via marriage? No. The mentally ill need help and understanding but their behavior must not be held out to others as "normal".

Not in any way. Most especially not via marriage: the acme of the social icon of normalcy..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

I have:

1. Setting an example for kids to "emulate and feel is OK" of the type of sex that HIV is spreading rampantly from and infecting a sudden spike in boys ages 13-24.

2. Mental illness in the LGBT crowd: Why are lipstick lesbians attracted to mannish women who wear strapons? And "top" gay men attracted to effeminant "bottoms"? There is such an obvious streak of closted heterosexuality in the gay population that is unexplored, unexamined and buried deep but obvious for all healthy people to see that people exhibiting mental issues that are quite profound like these...and wanting to amputate healthy organs to play-act the opposite gender/reject their own gender ... Deep deep mental illness is obvious. You don't normalize that via the iconic vehicle of marriage. It sends the wrong impression to kids about what society as a whole values as "normal".

3. LGBT functions as a cult. It has a strong recruitment presence now in public schools [evangelizing], it has indocrinated as a matter of law that minors cannot get reparative therapy on their own until they're 18, even when molestation was the event they trace to where their compulsive homosexuality began..yet multiple outreach groups encourage "bi curious" kids to "come out" to parties thrown as lures to tempt them into the fold. Heretics are punished [Anne Heche/Mozilla Firefox/Pope Benedict etc.] Their messiah Harvey Milk who so very recently over 60+ LGBT groups across North America had a postage stamp dedicated to the LGBT movement, had as his sexuality the sodomizing of orphaned teen homeless boys, mentally ill and further damaged by drug abuse. One after the other..


There are a thousand excellent reasons why LGBT marriage should not be. Pick any one you like. Add your own here.

Should they be persecuted? No. The mentally ill need help and understanding. Should we promote this behavior and its resulting cult via marriage? No. The mentally ill need help and understanding but their behavior must not be held out to others as "normal".

Not in any way. Most especially not via marriage: the acme of the social icon of normalcy..

So your argument seems to be that gay kids are somehow worse at protecting themselves from STIs than straight kids, but you don't advocate SEX EDUCATION as a way of dealing with this, no, you want to ban gay marriage.

Doesn't that seem just a little absurd to you?

Also, you have a problem with mental illness and you seem to want to ban mental illnesses, as if this has anything to do with this topic. You seem to have an obsession with girly men too. Weird, but if that's your thing....

And your 3rd is that they act as a cult, or probably better said, they like hanging out with each other, rather than getting beaten up by morons who have a problem with them. Go figure.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

I have

No, you haven’t.

In order for the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest it must justify its desire do deny a class of persons its civil liberties predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence pursuant to a proper legislative end.

What you have provided is subjective opinion and demagoguery, irrelevant and in no way compelling.

As already correctly noted, no state has been able to establish a compelling governmental interest.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is motivated solely by a desire to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

 

[Pop23]

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

I have

No, you haven’t.

In order for the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest it must justify its desire do deny a class of persons its civil liberties predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence pursuant to a proper legislative end.

What you have provided is subjective opinion and demagoguery, irrelevant and in no way compelling.

As already correctly noted, no state has been able to establish a compelling governmental interest.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is motivated solely by a desire to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

Dude, your last paragraph.

Seriously?

Marriage cannot make you the same as everyone else. Never will. Your unit, the couple you create, will never create a pregnancy. Never create a Soldier, a firefighter or a PhD. The make up of the same sex unit will always be different. The different is apparent now, and always will be. You'll still scream about being treated differently, still have silly parades trying to fit in.

Get over it

The polygamist that also will, if same sex marriage becomes law nationwide, will be granted marriage also be different, but at least they will admit it.

The single individual that will claim they are discriminated also will be different. They too will admit it.

Actually, it's sad that you actually think this will make you some how the same.

 

[Seawytch]

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

I have:

1. Setting an example for kids to "emulate and feel is OK" of the type of sex that HIV is spreading rampantly from and infecting a sudden spike in boys ages 13-24.

2. Mental illness in the LGBT crowd: Why are lipstick lesbians attracted to mannish women who wear strapons? And "top" gay men attracted to effeminant "bottoms"? There is such an obvious streak of closted heterosexuality in the gay population that is unexplored, unexamined and buried deep but obvious for all healthy people to see that people exhibiting mental issues that are quite profound like these...and wanting to amputate healthy organs to play-act the opposite gender/reject their own gender ... Deep deep mental illness is obvious. You don't normalize that via the iconic vehicle of marriage. It sends the wrong impression to kids about what society as a whole values as "normal".

3. LGBT functions as a cult. It has a strong recruitment presence now in public schools [evangelizing], it has indocrinated as a matter of law that minors cannot get reparative therapy on their own until they're 18, even when molestation was the event they trace to where their compulsive homosexuality began..yet multiple outreach groups encourage "bi curious" kids to "come out" to parties thrown as lures to tempt them into the fold. Heretics are punished [Anne Heche/Mozilla Firefox/Pope Benedict etc.] Their messiah Harvey Milk who so very recently over 60+ LGBT groups across North America had a postage stamp dedicated to the LGBT movement, had as his sexuality the sodomizing of orphaned teen homeless boys, mentally ill and further damaged by drug abuse. One after the other..


There are a thousand excellent reasons why LGBT marriage should not be. Pick any one you like. Add your own here.

Should they be persecuted? No. The mentally ill need help and understanding. Should we promote this behavior and its resulting cult via marriage? No. The mentally ill need help and understanding but their behavior must not be held out to others as "normal".

Not in any way. Most especially not via marriage: the acme of the social icon of normalcy..

You've not come up with anything that will stand up in a court of law. "It's icky" isn't a true legal argument.

 

[Seawytch]

I have

No, you haven’t.

In order for the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest it must justify its desire do deny a class of persons its civil liberties predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence pursuant to a proper legislative end.

What you have provided is subjective opinion and demagoguery, irrelevant and in no way compelling.

As already correctly noted, no state has been able to establish a compelling governmental interest.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is motivated solely by a desire to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

Dude, your last paragraph.

Seriously?

Marriage cannot make you the same as everyone else. Never will. Your unit, the couple you create, will never create a pregnancy. Never create a Soldier, a firefighter or a PhD. The make up of the same sex unit will always be different. The different is apparent now, and always will be. You'll still scream about being treated differently, still have silly parades trying to fit in.

Get over it

The polygamist that also will, if same sex marriage becomes law nationwide, will be granted marriage also be different, but at least they will admit it.

The single individual that will claim they are discriminated also will be different. They too will admit it.

Actually, it's sad that you actually think this will make you some how the same.

Once again you're not understanding what you're reading...if you're reading it at all. Gay couples are, in some states, treated differently under the law. There should be no difference, under the law, between gay couples and straight couples. Singles are not a couple. Polygamists are not a couple so there is no lack of equal treatment for them.

My legal marriage license is treated differently than yours in some states. That's not equality under the law. When my license is good in all 50 states just like yours is, then we will have equality under the law.

 

[Pop23]

No, you haven’t.

In order for the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest it must justify its desire do deny a class of persons its civil liberties predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence pursuant to a proper legislative end.

What you have provided is subjective opinion and demagoguery, irrelevant and in no way compelling.

As already correctly noted, no state has been able to establish a compelling governmental interest.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is motivated solely by a desire to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

Dude, your last paragraph.

Seriously?

Marriage cannot make you the same as everyone else. Never will. Your unit, the couple you create, will never create a pregnancy. Never create a Soldier, a firefighter or a PhD. The make up of the same sex unit will always be different. The different is apparent now, and always will be. You'll still scream about being treated differently, still have silly parades trying to fit in.

Get over it

The polygamist that also will, if same sex marriage becomes law nationwide, will be granted marriage also be different, but at least they will admit it.

The single individual that will claim they are discriminated also will be different. They too will admit it.

Actually, it's sad that you actually think this will make you some how the same.

Once again you're not understanding what you're reading...if you're reading it at all. Gay couples are, in some states, treated differently under the law. There should be no difference, under the law, between gay couples and straight couples. Singles are not a couple. Polygamists are not a couple so there is no lack of equal treatment for them.

My legal marriage license is treated differently than yours in some states. That's not equality under the law. When my license is good in all 50 states just like yours is, then we will have equality under the law.

I've tried to get you to realize that couple equals two. What exact relevancy is there to the number two if it relates to anything except a different sex couple. It is only those demographic units that CAN procreate. Procreation being the entire reason the species, that requires a government, exists at all.

This federal government sent the military into Utah territory to insure that it was that number that was allowed under the law to exist. And that one man would marry one woman.

Go ahead and explain why the concept of a unit, consisting of two is at all relevant.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Go ahead and explain why the concept of a unit, consisting of two is at all relevant.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Thanks Chief, saved me the typing.