Legalized Polygamy (or "I told you so")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.

So, you're saying it's not a concern because they can abort?

[Anonymous]

I see nothing wrong with polygamy (as long as the women are consenting and old enough).

For that matter, I'm still waiting on my "brother husband" to come along! I would love two men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

That assumes biological reproduction. If that is the danger, put a ban on incestuous reproduction. But extend marriage equality to incestuous couples. It's only fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

That assumes biological reproduction. If that is the danger, put a ban on incestuous reproduction. But extend marriage equality to incestuous couples. It's only fair.

With sperm banks and egg banks, it is just a matter of time before two people get into a relationship and find that they are biological siblings.......it has probably happened already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.

So, you're saying it's not a concern because they can abort?

aborting is only one option. They can have eggs/sperm tested in advance and artificially inseminate. This occurs today with people that have known genetically inheritable diseases that want children but don't want to chance passing the disease along to their child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?


Or, marrying a dog?


The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.



But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?


Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.

Dogs and animals in general are agnostic. The point is if one says it is part of his/her religion why would republican support a government prohibition against it? Mormons(use to) and other religions do allow polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Why is anyone opposed to further expanding marriage equality? Why the hate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone opposed to further expanding marriage equality? Why the hate?

Look at history; when did hate need a reason to exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

With today's advances in genetic testing this is no longer the concern it once was.

So, you're saying it's not a concern because they can abort?

aborting is only one option. They can have eggs/sperm tested in advance and artificially inseminate. This occurs today with people that have known genetically inheritable diseases that want children but don't want to chance passing the disease along to their child.

That doesn't meet the state's compelling interest in this case, because such testing would be voluntary, as would abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?


Or, marrying a dog?


The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.



But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?


Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.

Dogs and animals in general are agnostic. The point is if one says it is part of his/her religion why would republican support a government prohibition against it? Mormons(use to) and other religions do allow polygamy.

Who said anything about "agnostic"? Animals can't consent to a marriage. They can't enter into any binding legal contract, at all.

[Anonymous]

And like it or not, marriage IS a legal contract. Not a Christian birthright.

[FruminousBandersnatch]

The judge's opinion is available at https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78. The analysis of the case that supported the law banning polygamy is very interesting and revealing.

Essentially, the Court at the time found that polygamy was primarily a practice among non-Western (i.e., non-Christian) cultures, and, therefore -

In other words, the social harm was introducing a practice perceived to be characteristic of non-European people—or non-white races—into white American society.28 “The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.” Late Corp., 136 U.S. at 49.

Like the modern cases regarding gay marriage, there wasn't actually an articulable harm to society from allowing polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Polygamy is allowed in the Bible. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I think polygamy should be illegal because of the legal morass it can create. Who has property rights, who has the right to "pull the plug", how do you weed through custody issues in a multi parent family.... I think it would unduly burden our courts to have to sort this all out if there are multiple parties to a legal marriage.

Agree that animals cannot consent and thus cannot marry.

As for blood relatives, it is already illegal to marry or divorce for financial or tax considerations. My parents are also fixated on the idea of inter-family marriages as a way to protect inheritance. I said I'd be delighted to marry whichever of them does not pass away first