Should bigamy be legal

Redress said:

The arguments in favor of SSM:

1. Children do best in two parent married households. SSM therefore benefits children.
2. Marriage promotes social stability.
3. No good reason to oppose it.

For other types of marriage I would expect supporters to show similar reason for support. I have not seen such from supporters of bigamy/polygamy, but would certainly be willing to look at their arguments and data if they want to present it.

Click to expand...

I agree with 2 and 3 but 1 is a matter of the two people raising the child or 1 person in some cases. But good parenting and the child's success has much more to do with the person than it does thier sexual preference.

Zyphlin said:

First, it's my understanding at least one acknowledge it as compelling

Click to expand...

Turns out you are correct, and recently: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/606/01/. Ruling is the 9th Circuit ruling, and Judge Berzon in her concurring opinion specifically calls is gender discrimination(little over halfway through the document). I would quote the passage but pdf copy/paste **** up formatting way too badly, leaving about 1 word per line.

Two, my stance on the political reasons I think it's not actively pushed on that reason has long been established. (It's not about marriage, it's about leveraging marriage as a means of elevating the sexual orientation classification itself)

Click to expand...

I do not see this. The battle is for SSM, not for something more.

Three, regardless of what the judges opinions are I do feel it compelling. Far more so than the sexual orientation argument.

Click to expand...

I understand this and was not trying to dismiss nor diminish your belief.

Kreton said:

I agree with 2 and 3 but 1 is a matter of the two people raising the child or 1 person in some cases. But good parenting and the child's success has much more to do with the person than it does thier sexual preference.

Click to expand...

All the current research shows that children do best, all other things being equal, in a two parent home. The research also shows that the gender and orientation of those parents is irrelevant.

lifeisshort said:

If you think allowing gays to marry and now that ends all issues on marriage you are mistaken. This is just getting started and in 10 years marriage will be a meaningless institution.

Click to expand...

Marriage can never be meaningless unless the persons involved in it let it be. Does your marriage need to be recognized by the state to have meaning to you?

Does the failure of other people's marriages affect you? Make yours look bad, feel bad? Have less value?

lifeisshort said:

Read post #60. Gays want the institution of marriage destroyed.

Click to expand...

How can they destroy it by getting married?

Are they doing it out of spite? lol

I always love the allusions to 'the gay agenda.' Never heard what exactly that is tho.

Redress said:

All the current research shows that children do best, all other things being equal, in a two parent home. The research also shows that the gender and orientation of those parents is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

That sounds like the same thing i just said. i am pretty sure i am missing something.

Redress said:

All the current research shows that children do best, all other things being equal, in a two parent home. The research also shows that the gender and orientation of those parents is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Nevermind, I misread your the original post. I read it as kids do best in SSM homes. I was stating that sexual orientation didn't matter thinking you were saying SSM couples were better at raising kids. sorry.

lifeisshort said:

I don't understand the confusion on this, bigamy means bigamy.

Click to expand...

IMO, you phrased the question obtusely in order to get a desired result and 'prove' some nebulous point.

In a nutshell, "bigamy" is when a person is married to two or people at the same time but none of the spouses know about each other. Bigamy is illegal. A type of fraud, if you will.

"Polygamy" is when a person is married to two or more people at the same time, but everybody knows about it, and probably even live together as one big happy family. Polygamy is also currently illegal in most places, but does have significance in some religions, societies, etc.

So, let's try again: Which one do you mean?

bigamy..... would cause many economic problems for business.

Redress said:

Turns out you are correct,

Click to expand...

Full disclosure, didn't know about that one. I was thinking of the one a year or so ago in California.

I do not see this. The battle is for SSM, not for something more.

Click to expand...

I understand that. You and I have discussed this before and we simply disagree.

I think the gender issue is CLEARLY the stronger case of the two, even if you think the sexual orientation case is strong. There's zero question that gender is a middle teir issue, there's significant question as to whether sexual orientation should be anything above rational basis. I also think there's absolutely clear cut gender discrimination going on.

The only reason I can think that would be a legitimate reason to NOT choose and go with the clearly stronger case with a designation that is clearly at a higher teir of protection is because the desire is not simply to win regarding same sex marriage, but to firmly establishes a higher level of scrutiny and protection given to sexual orientation. If that was not the primary, or at least equal, reason than it would make no sense not to go with the far simple, straight forward, and clearly higher tier case.

I know we've disagreed on this one a bunch, but that's simply my take. I firmly and fully believe that by and large, within the core of the activist movement on the matter, it's not at all primarily about same sex marriage and is almost singularly about establishing sexual orientation as a highly protected status. They simply see this as the simplest and best chance to go about it. Now, as is the case with most political issue movements, the rank and file folks out in the world aren't likely thinking about it at that more in depth level and are just going along with what the political leaders and social swing says they should do.

I understand this and was not trying to dismiss nor diminish your belief.

Click to expand...

I get that. Just wanted to make sure and clarify. Often people will make that claim as if somehow that means ones opinion on the matter can't possibly be different. I know that's not what you were actually suggesting.

Zyphlin said:

Full disclosure, didn't know about that one. I was thinking of the one a year or so ago in California.



I understand that. You and I have discussed this before and we simply disagree.

I think the gender issue is CLEARLY the stronger case of the two, even if you think the sexual orientation case is strong. There's zero question that gender is a middle teir issue, there's significant question as to whether sexual orientation should be anything above rational basis. I also think there's absolutely clear cut gender discrimination going on.

The only reason I can think that would be a legitimate reason to NOT choose and go with the clearly stronger case with a designation that is clearly at a higher teir of protection is because the desire is not simply to win regarding same sex marriage, but to firmly establishes a higher level of scrutiny and protection given to sexual orientation. If that was not the primary, or at least equal, reason than it would make no sense not to go with the far simple, straight forward, and clearly higher tier case.

I know we've disagreed on this one a bunch, but that's simply my take. I firmly and fully believe that by and large, within the core of the activist movement on the matter, it's not at all primarily about same sex marriage and is almost singularly about establishing sexual orientation as a highly protected status. They simply see this as the simplest and best chance to go about it. Now, as is the case with most political issue movements, the rank and file folks out in the world aren't likely thinking about it at that more in depth level and are just going along with what the political leaders and social swing says they should do.

Click to expand...

I agree that the gender discrimination case should e easy to make. However, I believe that the reasoning used is that orientation is clearly Rational Basis, and that is all that is really needed to overturn the laws in the courts. So far for the most part, the courts have agreed.

I get that. Just wanted to make sure and clarify. Often people will make that claim as if somehow that means ones opinion on the matter can't possibly be different. I know that's not what you were actually suggesting.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

I agree that the gender discrimination case should e easy to make. However, I believe that the reasoning used is that orientation is clearly Rational Basis, and that is all that is really needed to overturn the laws in the courts. So far for the most part, the courts have agreed.

Click to expand...

You need a ride home.

Say you know there's a 95% shot that if you offer the guy you see on the street $10 bucks that he'll take you home. You also figure there's a 75% shot that if you offer him $5 he'll take you home. But if he doesn't take you home, you're pretty much stranded.

Why would you possibly give only the $5 dollars, even if there's a good chance he'll do it for that, when you're almost positive you'll get that ride home by giving a little bit more? Why risk being strandard? It makes no sense unless you have a specific reason.

That's my issue here. Going "Well, the rational basis argument is going to be good enough so we'll just go with that instead of the argument that would admittedly be easier and stronger" doesn't make logical sense. There's no logical reason to go with the worse argument, even if it's still a good argument, UNLESS you have an extra reason for doing so.

lifeisshort said:

If you think allowing gays to marry and now that ends all issues on marriage you are mistaken. This is just getting started and in 10 years marriage will be a meaningless institution.

Click to expand...

And to think it all started when we allowed people to marry outside their race! My gods how slippery the slope has become!

tres borrachos said:

What on Earth are you babbling about? I have no interest in debating the positives, negatives or whatevers of the Warren Jeffs clan with you or anyone else.

Don't worry about my post to him which had nothing to do with you, and wasn't a debate post.

Click to expand...

Please do not associate the rest of us poly with the FLDS and we'll not associate you with WBC.

Zyphlin said:

You need a ride home.

Say you know there's a 95% shot that if you offer the guy you see on the street $10 bucks that he'll take you home. You also figure there's a 75% shot that if you offer him $5 he'll take you home. But if he doesn't take you home, you're pretty much stranded.

Why would you possibly give only the $5 dollars, even if there's a good chance he'll do it for that, when you're almost positive you'll get that ride home by giving a little bit more? Why risk being strandard? It makes no sense unless you have a specific reason.

That's my issue here. Going "Well, the rational basis argument is going to be good enough so we'll just go with that instead of the argument that would admittedly be easier and stronger" doesn't make logical sense. There's no logical reason to go with the worse argument, even if it's still a good argument, UNLESS you have an extra reason for doing so.

Click to expand...

Because prior to SCOTUS, you can always offer the next guy 10 bucks. I would also argue that your percentages are pretty skewed. Gender discrimination, while to my mind is more correct, is alot harder sell to make to judges I strongly suspect. In a perfect world logic wins, always, but it isn't a perfect world, and giving people an easy way to duck the issue, or rule against it without ruling "against gays" is probably not something you want to do, especially when it could take years to "get home" if you fail.

Edit: that first couple sentences came out way wrong and I got to run and no time to think about where I went wrong. Kinda disregard them please....

roguenuke said:

It was a post in a debate thread.

I am talking about what was brought up by you. When it comes to some forms of polygamy that we have seen here in the US, the most common that occurs here in the US (at least up til now, although I believe this will change) is where old men from the FLDS clans marry really young girls, in their mid teens, with permission from their parents. The laws that allow for this, laws that allow parents to give their children permission to marry prior to them being 18 is one of the things that needs to change, especially if we are considering removing the limitation on numbers of spouses a person can have legally.

Click to expand...

Corrections: the form of polygamy that is most noticed. That which is most common is not necessarily that with is seen or noticed the most. Car accidents are the more common form of vehicular accidents, yet trains and planes and even ocean liners get far more attention when they have accidents.

lifeisshort said:

I don't understand the confusion on this, bigamy means bigamy.

Click to expand...

That is because you are ignorant of the differences. Bigamy is a legal status only. How the state defines its legal marriages can make a difference as to whether a 3+ member marriage would be covered by the term bigamy. If the poly marriage includes all members in a single marriage unit, then they are not engaged in bigamy. If the state requires that each combination of two have separate marriages, then they are. Unlike marriage of any type (poly, mono, OSM,SSM,etc), which can be engaged in without any legal recognition by the government, bigamy by it's very definition requires government acknowledgement.

Lursa said:

Marriage can never be meaningless unless the persons involved in it let it be. Does your marriage need to be recognized by the state to have meaning to you?

Does the failure of other people's marriages affect you? Make yours look bad, feel bad? Have less value?

Click to expand...

When anyone can be married to anything as many times as they like marriage will be destroyed and meaningless so what is the point of a young hey to couple going through the motions. They may as well just cohabitate and that is what many Emanuel people want to happen, destroy American values one at a time

radcen said:

IMO, you phrased the question obtusely in order to get a desired result and 'prove' some nebulous point.

In a nutshell, "bigamy" is when a person is married to two or people at the same time but none of the spouses know about each other. Bigamy is illegal. A type of fraud, if you will.

"Polygamy" is when a person is married to two or more people at the same time, but everybody knows about it, and probably even live together as one big happy family. Polygamy is also currently illegal in most places, but does have significance in some religions, societies, etc.

So, let's try again: Which one do you mean?

Click to expand...

I said big I meant big and if you don't like the way I wrote the OP ignore it. I'm a rancher not a writer and talk to more cows than people so I do the best in here I can

maquiscat said:

That is because you are ignorant of the differences. Bigamy is a legal status only. How the state defines its legal marriages can make a difference as to whether a 3+ member marriage would be covered by the term bigamy. If the poly marriage includes all members in a single marriage unit, then they are not engaged in bigamy. If the state requires that each combination of two have separate marriages, then they are. Unlike marriage of any type (poly, mono, OSM,SSM,etc), which can be engaged in without any legal recognition by the government, bigamy by it's very definition requires government acknowledgement.

Click to expand...

Bigamy means more than one marriage and that is coming. It is the next step in destroying the institution

maquiscat said:

And to think it all started when we allowed people to marry outside their race! My gods how slippery the slope has become!

Click to expand...

And the race card is played

lifeisshort said:

And the race card is played

Click to expand...

That's very rare compared to the "white hetero men are victims" card.

maquiscat said:

That is because you are ignorant of the differences. Bigamy is a legal status only. How the state defines its legal marriages can make a difference as to whether a 3+ member marriage would be covered by the term bigamy. If the poly marriage includes all members in a single marriage unit, then they are not engaged in bigamy. If the state requires that each combination of two have separate marriages, then they are. Unlike marriage of any type (poly, mono, OSM,SSM,etc), which can be engaged in without any legal recognition by the government, bigamy by it's very definition requires government acknowledgement.

Click to expand...

What of it? Polygamy is illegal just like bigamy. Anyone who's engaging in it is breaking the state law, whether or not there is any official record of the partners involved.

matchlight said:

What of it? Polygamy is illegal just like bigamy. Anyone who's engaging in it is breaking the state law, whether or not there is any official record of the partners involved.

Click to expand...

For the supposed point of the question, the distinction is very relevant.

It is entirely possible that polygamy will be rendered legal in the future, while bigamy will not. Bigamy being fraud, and the fraud aspect will remain illegal.

radcen said:

For the supposed point of the question, the distinction is very relevant.

It is entirely possible that polygamy will be rendered legal in the future, while bigamy will not. Bigamy being fraud, and the fraud aspect will remain illegal.

Click to expand...

Why is it necessarily fraud for a person who is already married to one person to marry another? A state could change its law to allow that, if it chose. If everyone involved knew what was happening, who would be unfairly tricked?

As for legalizing polygamy, what about the states Congress forced to include in their constitutions a pledge to ban plural marriage forever, as a condition of being admitted to the Union? They couldn't just amend their constitutions to remove that, as they might amend other parts of them. Suppose the Supreme Court cooks up a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, as it may. A state like this would no longer have any valid reason for allowing homosexuals to marry each other, but continuing to make polygamy illegal--that would seem to violate the guarantee of equal protection--and yet it could not make it legal. Maybe it could just secede.