Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Polygamy and the Constitution

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

But seriously, how would it be convoluted? If there were three people, instead of splitting their things down the middle, it would be 1/3 for two spouses, 1/4 for three, etc.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
What about the money the other wive now has pooled with the husband. And how do you factor in unequal contributions to the marraige from the wives?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:58:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:52:22 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
What about the money the other wive now has pooled with the husband. And how do you factor in unequal contributions to the marraige from the wives?

This is already a problem even with monogamous marriages.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:59:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:58:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:52:22 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
What about the money the other wive now has pooled with the husband. And how do you factor in unequal contributions to the marraige from the wives?


This is already a problem even with monogamous marriages.

And polygamy won't help it any more. But a divorce among 3- 5+ plaintiffs if exponentially more expensive to taxpayers and the parties involved
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:05:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:59:47 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:52:22 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
What about the money the other wive now has pooled with the husband. And how do you factor in unequal contributions to the marraige from the wives?


This is already a problem even with monogamous marriages.

And polygamy won't help it any more. But a divorce among 3- 5+ plaintiffs if exponentially more expensive to taxpayers and the parties involved

I understand where you are coming from there, but we should not necassarily consider the expenses for tax payers, because since we are indeed a constitutional republic, and you are not denying that polygamy is indeed constitutional, the government should allow it, since the government only has two jobs in a constitutional republic

-Carry out the will of the people
- Do not let the will of the people extend so far so that the Constitution will be defied

I think moral relativism is winning out over out constitution, and since we are indeed a constitutional republic, this is wrong, is it not?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:08:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

It would certainly provide work for lawyers.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:13:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:05:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:59:47 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:52:22 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
What about the money the other wive now has pooled with the husband. And how do you factor in unequal contributions to the marraige from the wives?


This is already a problem even with monogamous marriages.

And polygamy won't help it any more. But a divorce among 3- 5+ plaintiffs if exponentially more expensive to taxpayers and the parties involved

I understand where you are coming from there, but we should not necassarily consider the expenses for tax payers, because since we are indeed a constitutional republic, and you are not denying that polygamy is indeed constitutional, the government should allow it, since the government only has two jobs in a constitutional republic

-Carry out the will of the people
- Do not let the will of the people extend so far so that the Constitution will be defied

I think moral relativism is winning out over out constitution, and since we are indeed a constitutional republic, this is wrong, is it not?

I think it should be allowed. But all couples should have to pay full court fees for divorces, monogamous or polygamous
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:56:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL

No more like 1/3, because its a love triangle.
Unless of course there was a prenup.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:12:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

Yes
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:43:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:56:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL

No more like 1/3, because its a love triangle.
Unless of course there was a prenup.

Technically, it should be 50:25:25.
Man marries wife A, then man marries wife B.
Man divorces wife A.
Since wife A and wife B are not unified (they are not married), one "spouse" would theoretically get half, and the other would get half.
So, wife A would get 50%, while man would get 50% to be shared with wife B.

Polygamy =/= commune, as the second wife did not marry the first.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:52:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

Not really.
Just because something is accepted on religious grounds does not mean it expresses one's religion.

The not eating of pork, the sacrifice of animals, or the not shaving of one's beard is paramount to certain religions, so it is largely protected. Simply condoning/allowing an activity (in this case polygamy) is not in the same category of expression.

Besides, the law not recognizing the marriage does not take away from the spiritual connection of the ceremony, so I don't see the discrimination if they can still perform said marriages, just that they are not recognized.
My work here is, finally, done.
Subutai
Posts: 3,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:04:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:12:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

Yes

Profound...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:23:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I personally believe that polygamy should be legal. I think as long as the marriage is between consenting adults, I don't care what other details are involved.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:13:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

Khaos_Mage is correct. There is no such thing as a right to have one's marriage recognized by the government, and there is no religion which states that the gods will shun upon anyone who fails to achieve their governments approval. The laws definition of marriage has nothing to do with a persons right to exercise their religion.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:59:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:52:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

Not really.
Just because something is accepted on religious grounds does not mean it expresses one's religion.

The not eating of pork, the sacrifice of animals, or the not shaving of one's beard is paramount to certain religions, so it is largely protected. Simply condoning/allowing an activity (in this case polygamy) is not in the same category of expression.

Besides, the law not recognizing the marriage does not take away from the spiritual connection of the ceremony, so I don't see the discrimination if they can still perform said marriages, just that they are not recognized.

I should be able to choose not to fund marriages that I do not agree with if that is the case. We are not tools that society can manipulate; the state is ostensibly our servant. It needs to be providing equal recognition. I have this right by virtue of the fact that, as a citizen, I am the ruler of the state. If the state restricts recognition to specific types of marriages, it is recognizing and promoting certain religions, which is a violation of the First Amendment.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:34:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:13:36 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:05:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:59:47 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:52:22 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:49:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Not really, if you have two wives, if one divorces you, she gets 25%, LOL
What about the money the other wive now has pooled with the husband. And how do you factor in unequal contributions to the marraige from the wives?


This is already a problem even with monogamous marriages.

And polygamy won't help it any more. But a divorce among 3- 5+ plaintiffs if exponentially more expensive to taxpayers and the parties involved

I understand where you are coming from there, but we should not necassarily consider the expenses for tax payers, because since we are indeed a constitutional republic, and you are not denying that polygamy is indeed constitutional, the government should allow it, since the government only has two jobs in a constitutional republic

-Carry out the will of the people
- Do not let the will of the people extend so far so that the Constitution will be defied

I think moral relativism is winning out over out constitution, and since we are indeed a constitutional republic, this is wrong, is it not?

I think it should be allowed. But all couples should have to pay full court fees for divorces, monogamous or polygamous

As do I.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:57:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:46:33 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:42:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Isn't denying the right to give polygamous people marriage licenses or recognize their marriage unconstitutional? After all, some religions (Some Mormons, Muslims, etc.) consider polygamy acceptable, so by refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, isn't the gov't denying people the freedom of religious expression?

I think the only real argument against polygamy is the convoluted logistics of a polygamous divorce.

Untrue.
http://www.marriagedebate.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross