Should polygamy be legalized? (Poll)

[rightwinger]

As a country, we are perfectly justified in telling knuckle dragging troglodytes from third world shit holes "no, you CAN'T have a harem in this country".

If we allow polygamy, it is available to everyone

If it is consensual, it does no harm

 

[Slade3200]

I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage. The topic was about polygamy, not gay marriage. The two things are entirely unrelated except for the word 'marriage.'

And yes, good government and anybody who still thinks critically understands the importance and value of the traditional marriage and supports/promotes that which is a very different thing from mandating that. The reason to oppose polygamy I very specifically spelled out.

And I think it dishonorable to take something out of its full context and represent it as something that was never said or intended.

Ok, fair point. I took your emphasis on the value of traditional marriage in society as an opposition to gay marriage but that was presumptive of me and I apologize.

You did make a fair argument for your stance regarding polygamy, however it has to come back to what the government should be regulating and what citizens should be free to do. Self expression and who we love are personal freedoms. You can teach whatever values you want to your kids but when it comes to the public sector and our laws and freedom, I don’t think your argument justifies stripping away people’s right to choose who they marry

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Apples and oranges. A married gay couple is not the same as a single parent so you can't compare the two. I think studies show children of a married gay couple turn out very similar to those of a married straight couple.

I have known quite a number of adults raised by two same sex parents. They have the same dysfunctions as anyone coming from a single sex, single parent household. The best same sex parents provide a stable role model of the opposite sex. A grand parent, close friend, some male couples incorporate the birth mother. Those kids aren't likely to need lifelong therapy.

 

[alang1216]

A married gay couple are not the two biological parents of a child.

So? It doesn't seem to matter to the child.

 

[HeyNorm]

Ok, fair point. I took your emphasis on the value of traditional marriage in society as an opposition to gay marriage but that was presumptive of me and I apologize.

You did make a fair argument for your stance regarding polygamy, however it has to come back to what the government should be regulating and what citizens should be free to do. Self expression and who we love are personal freedoms. You can teach whatever values you want to your kids but when it comes to the public sector and our laws and freedom, I don’t think your argument justifies stripping away people’s right to choose who they marry

Where you if the understanding that a polygamist can’t marry? They absolutely can, but only to one other individual. As it should be.

 

[Red Front]

If people can do whatever they want that will undermine freedom?!?!

Is that really what you just said?!

Yes, you read it correctly. There's no freedom, without boundaries. Freedom has its limits. Freedom without boundaries is chaos. Chaos undermines your peace, relationships, health, and life. It destroys it. Freedom without well-defined boundaries leads to pain and suffering, scarcity, disease, and death.

 

[Slade3200]

Where you if the understanding that a polygamist can’t marry? They absolutely can, but only to one other individual. As it should be.

Why should it be only one?

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, you read it correctly. There's no freedom, without boundaries. Freedom has its limits. Freedom without boundaries is chaos. Chaos undermines your peace, relationships, health, and life. It destroys it. Freedom without well-defined boundaries leads to pain and suffering, scarcity, disease, and death.

The boundaries to freedom should be with the things that cause harm to others. If your actions aren’t causing others harm then they shouldn’t be regulated by the government .

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, fair point. I took your emphasis on the value of traditional marriage in society as an opposition to gay marriage but that was presumptive of me and I apologize.

You did make a fair argument for your stance regarding polygamy, however it has to come back to what the government should be regulating and what citizens should be free to do. Self expression and who we love are personal freedoms. You can teach whatever values you want to your kids but when it comes to the public sector and our laws and freedom, I don’t think your argument justifies stripping away people’s right to choose who they marry

Thank you. We all have probably drawn incorrect assumptions at times and I appreciate your 'confession' there. No harm no foul.

There is no federal law regarding polygamy/bigamy other than the 1882 Edmunds Act forbidding polygamy in U.S. territories. There are laws prohibiting polygamy/bigamy in all 50 states, including Utah who was required to constitutionally ban it as a condition for statehood. It is considered against public policy by the federal government but the federal government does not enforce that policy as law.

I believe my argument more than justified the states prohibiting polygamy, and it is the states who, since the ratification of the Constitution, establish all laws concerning marriage up until the Supreme Court took the reins on gay marriage . That is why Justice Thomas said the Supreme Court should revisit the gay marriage issue because the Court established a law that Constitutionally is the prerogative of the states. I think at this time very very few states, if any, would not pass laws establishing necessary rules and protections for gay couples & their immediate families whether or not they called it 'marriage', purely for practical reasons if not moral ones.

Again marriage laws are important in the matter of inheritance, responsibility and liability re shared property, safeguards and protections for all family members, especially children. To think that such laws should not exist is not even feasible let alone workable.

And again promoting and encouraging the traditional family has significant positive affect and influence for all the people and should be public policy everywhere. To acknowledge that in no way suggests that anybody should not have liberty to live their lives outside a traditional family structure should they choose to do so.

There is a difference in law via social contract versus government dictate. In my opinion the marriage laws of all the states are almost always via social contract.
.

 

[Red Front]

The boundaries to freedom should be with the things that cause harm to others. If your actions aren’t causing others harm then they shouldn’t be regulated by the government .

If it causes you harm, since you don't live in a vacuum or alone in Antarctica with the penguins, it will also harm others. If I harm myself by taking hard drugs, in private, that will harm my family, my neighbors, and my community (in public). If the government allows incest, polygamy, polyandry, sex in public, pedophilia (there are "woke" leftists arguing for legalizing pedo-sex), pornography, and also gay marriage, all of that undermines public health, safety, and order. The government should regulate it because, at the end of the day, when people foul up, it's often the government (the public, society), that has to pick up the tab and "bailout" the miscreants and screw-ups.

 

[buttercup]

The Bible is full of polygamous relationships

What is your point? The Bible talks about a lot of things, like greed, drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, etc, etc. Just because something is written about in the bible doesn't mean that God approves of it, or that it's God's perfect will. God defined marriage in Genesis 2. Jesus re-affirmed that definition in Matthew 19, so anything other than that isn't actually marriage. Just an agreement between people, not God-ordained.

Just sayin.

 

[kyzr]

Yes, you read it correctly. There's no freedom, without boundaries. Freedom has its limits. Freedom without boundaries is chaos. Chaos undermines your peace, relationships, health, and life. It destroys it. Freedom without well-defined boundaries leads to pain and suffering, scarcity, disease, and death.

Well said.
When I made the OP I never thought that the "yes" vote would beat the "no" vote.
It just shows that the people w/o souls have no boundaries, no God, no religion, just hedonism.

 

[Slade3200]

If it causes you harm, since you don't live in a vacuum or alone in Antarctica with the penguins, it will also harm others. If I harm myself by taking hard drugs, in private, that will harm my family, my neighbors, and my community (in public). If the government allows incest, polygamy, polyandry, sex in public, pedophilia (there are "woke" leftists arguing for legalizing pedo-sex), pornography, and also gay marriage, all of that undermines public health, safety, and order. The government should regulate it because, at the end of the day, when people foul up, it's often the government (the public, society), that has to pick up the tab and "bailout" the miscreants and screw-ups.

Funny you conflate the discussion by bringing incest and pedophilia and sex in public into the conversation. None of which we are talking about. But I guess I understand why you did it since you really have no argument to justify outlawing gay marriage and polygamy. Two things that don’t harm anybody

 

[HeyNorm]

Funny you conflate the discussion by bringing incest and pedophilia and sex in public into the conversation. None of which we are talking about. But I guess I understand why you did it since you really have no argument to justify outlawing gay marriage and polygamy. Two things that don’t harm anybody

Not that I want to interrupt your conversation, but both gays and polygamists have never been excluded from marriage.

They just have to, if they choose to marry, pick one to marry of the opposite sex.

I just recently posted an article of a gay man who has been very happily married to a lesbian for over 33 years.

 

[Slade3200]

Not that I want to interrupt your conversation, but both gays and polygamists have never been excluded from marriage.

They just have to, if they choose to marry, pick one to marry of the opposite sex.

I just recently posted an article of a gay man who has been very happily married to a lesbian for over 33 years.

Please reread what you just wrote and then go to the corner and think about what you’ve done.

 

[HeyNorm]

Please reread what you just wrote and then go to the corner and think about what you’ve done.

Oh, I think I’ve been quite clear.

 

[Slade3200]

Oh, I think I’ve been quite clear.

Yes very clear. Hey I have an idea. Test your theory out. How about you marry somebody of the same sex to experience what it feels like being with somebody opposite of your natural preference. See what it’s like for those your brilliant suggestion would impact

 

[alang1216]

The government should regulate it because, at the end of the day, when people foul up, it's often the government (the public, society), that has to pick up the tab and "bailout" the miscreants and screw-ups.

There will always be a tradeoff between freedom and accountability but each case is unique and should be decided on its merits. Addiction to any drug (or anything really) is a problem but banning everyone from having alcohol wasn't worth the price. Pedophilia is a danger to society so banning it is good. Gay marriage has not proven to be a danger to society so banning it is a negative. Coercing behavior should be a last resort, education and incentives would be much better. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is much riskier than with. So is being fat or eating too much sugar. Where does it end?

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes very clear. Hey I have an idea. Test your theory out. How about you marry somebody of the same sex to experience what it feels like being with somebody opposite of your natural preference. See what it’s like for those your brilliant suggestion would impact

No, the “natural” preference would obviously be the opposite sex. If that were not the case, we wouldn’t be here to have this conversation in the first place.

 

[sparky]

If it is consensual, it does no harm

all masochist tendencies aside..... ~S~