Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by maquiscat

You assume that wealthy men have an interest in marrying that many women. While I see evidence that many would keep a bunch around for their various "interest", why would they necessarily want to marry them, again FLDS aside.

That aside what about all the women unavailable now because they are lesbian, bi with other women, or just plain asexual? Is that not also creating an imbalance? I also note that you have not addressed the poly families like mine and others where there is a mix of men and women.

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.

Originally Posted by Taylor

At the very least a compelling state interest and show that the current law is narrowly tailored (there goes the "we need to outlaw polygamy altogether because some men will take far too many wives" argument).

Then again, gay marriage was legalized without any consideration of state interests. The opinion ignored precedent on that. Not saying that would happen in a future case, just that it could.

To the contrary, you clearly did not read the ruling.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

As was interracial marriage. Your point?

Not true, the Loving opinion deals with them explicitly and extensively.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

It does follow, but you are clouded by certain assumptions. Assumption based, I readily admit, on the current structure, which would need to change in order for polygamy to work as a legal entity within the US. I do not deny that the systems were not designed for more than 2 individuals within a single marriage, but the country has adapted before. Our laws were not designed to handle all the new things that arose from the internet. Yet we adapted, such as with internet bully and stalking laws, as a minor example. We are constantly creating and changing and that which we had designed for before has to either be adapted or changed out for something new. Do you think that the original laws governing free speech and free press and such were designed with radio and television and internet in mind? we had to adapt and/or create new laws to account for these changes. Why do you think that we would no need to make changes?

Thank you for rightly admitting that polygamy does not work economically the way the systems are currently designed.

As far as changing the system to accommodate polygamists, this is an entirely different kettle of fish than gay marriage. I have shown that gay people don't have a choice, this is NOT LEARNED BEHAVIOR. The mental health professionals have said we don't need to change the gay person (it is harmful to do so), we need to change society, in order to accommodate a normally occurring variation in a substantial portion of humanity across all societies and across all time.

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:

In 1890, church president Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto that officially terminated the practice of polygamy.[6] Although this Manifesto did not dissolve existing plural marriages, relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state. After the Manifesto, some Mormons continued to enter into polygamous marriages, but these eventually stopped in 1904 when church president Joseph F. Smith disavowed polygamy before Congress and issued a "Second Manifesto", calling for all plural marriages in the church to cease. Several small "fundamentalist" groups seeking to continue the practice split from the LDS Church, including the Apostolic United Brethren and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church). Meanwhile, the LDS Church adopted a policy of excommunicating members found practicing polygamy, and today actively seeks to distance itself from fundamentalist groups that continue the practice.[7] On its web site, the church states that "the standard doctrine of the church is monogamy" and that polygamy was a temporary exception to the rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy

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.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

To the contrary, you clearly did not read the ruling.

Feel free to quote the parts you think most support your claim.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

ROFLMFAO!!!! You're basing typical poly families off a TV reality show?!? Seriously? If anyone else tried that, say with Wives of Jersey Shore (or whatever the title of the show with Sookie in it) as to how New Jersey women behave, you and everyone on this site would have laughed them back to Essembly (dated reference for any who might get it.). You need to do a lot better to show the Brown family as the typical poly family.

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.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

Now you need to show that poly families are of such a size as to raise this average substantially. As noted, I do not have an issue if a policy increases in the premiums if the family size goes above, say, 8, but that applies to 8, regardless of the combination of children/adults.

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.

Originally Posted by maquiscat

That is a skewed statistic based upon the FLDS where the women are typically not working. Using them as the example of polygamy is like using WBC as the example of Christianity. I have yet to see a study that went about finding the other poly families in the country today.

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.