Legalize Polygamy!

[nehalem256]

Turner v. Safley struck down another regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry.



It is not all that narrow. It set the precedence that a states interests is not more important than a persons right to marry. This ruling is one of the ones instrumental in the current rulings against laws prohibiting SSM, and clearly gives precedence that marriage is a right that is protected under the Constitution and can not be impinged by State law.


Yes, it is a default decision, but it is a SCOUTS ruling on marriage that sets precedent. What is important about this is it is being used as precedent to state that anti-SSM laws are allowed on the state level. Of course the other argument is that Zablocki v. Redhail effectively reverses it.


Yes, this is hands down a SCOUTS ruling on Marriage. This is where SCOTUS said that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the liberty element of the due process clause, and was only 47 years ago.


The SCOTUS's rulings are rarely very narrow in practice. They are always generalized to understand the law. There probably are lots of cases that SCOTUS did not hear, but that is harder to research.



Forty Seven years ago SCOTUS said that "the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the liberty element of the due process clause." That ruling gives it plenty of ability to rule on marriage laws, not just that they are unequal, but that they infringe on a protected right.


To me the federal government is saying that marriage has so much value and meaning that states have no right to deny it to people.

So then it would seem that the right to polygamy is undeniable.:thumbsup:

And in fact even more undeniable than same-sex "marriage", because polygamy is undeniably marriage, whereas same-sex "marriage" is merely applying the word marriage to a totally unrelated relationship.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So then it would seem that the right to polygamy is undeniable.:thumbsup:

It would certainly seem to be, but the government is made up of people, and people do silly emotional things. It will take time for them to get comfortable enough to see that their fears are unfounded.

And in fact even more undeniable than same-sex "marriage", because polygamy is undeniably marriage, whereas same-sex "marriage" is merely applying the word marriage to a totally unrelated relationship.

I'm not sure about this. I don't see a fundamental difference. But, I don't want to confuse the two issues, SSM is a different issue then Poly marriage, if for no other reason then people feel differently about them.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not sure about this. I don't see a fundamental difference. But, I don't want to confuse the two issues, SSM is a different issue then Poly marriage, if for no other reason then people feel differently about them.

Rights are not suppose to be subject to feelings.

Imagine if someone tried to say that letting white people and black people sit in the front of the bus are 2 different issues because people feel different about them

 

[SMOGZINN]

Rights are not suppose to be subject to feelings.

Imagine if someone tried to say that letting white people and black people sit in the front of the bus are 2 different issues because people feel different about them

No they are not, but I live in the really real world where they do.
And BTW, your example is pretty much exactly what happened in the US civil rights movement. The Plessy ruling in 1896 established that white people and black people sitting in the front of the bus where two different things, and it took until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling for people to be willing to see past their emotions and change it.

 

[BoberFett]

No they are not, but I live in the really real world where they do.
And BTW, your example is pretty much exactly what happened in the US civil rights movement. The Plessy ruling in 1896 established that white people and black people sitting in the front of the bus where two different things, and it took until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling for people to be willing to see past their emotions and change it.

That's part of the hilarity of this issue. Enlightened "liberals" who champion the rights of others will happily deny certain classes their rights if it's something that makes them feel icky.

"Same sex marriage is a right! Down with bigotry! But ewww, polygamy is for cults and rapists."

 

[Moonbeam]

That's part of the hilarity of this issue. Enlightened "liberals" who champion the rights of others will happily deny certain classes their rights if it's something that makes them feel icky.

"Same sex marriage is a right! Down with bigotry! But ewww, polygamy is for cults and rapists."

It's a natural area of focus for folk whose ability to pair bond was damaged in childhood. It 's not icky, it's like a tree that's bent by wind and grows in a curve. ItS still a tree and a living thing. In people the bend is mental and not necessarily fixed. We were all bent in some way. Your ego is just defensive about any old human fact because you. We're taught your faults make you worthless. I can look at mine differently because I know what causes me to want to act like you. I feel as worthless anis you do, but I know it because I don't believe it even though I feel it't true.

 

[BoberFett]

It's a natural area of focus for folk whose ability to pair bond was damaged in childhood. It 's not icky, it's like a tree that's bent by wind and grows in a curve. ItS still a tree and a living thing. In people the bend is mental and not necessarily fixed. We were all bent in some way. Your ego is just defensive about any old human fact because you. We're taught your faults make you worthless. I can look at mine differently because I know what causes me to want to act like you. I feel as worthless anis you do, but I know it because I don't believe it even though I feel it't true.

Your assumption's about the natural state of "pair bonding" is based in what exactly? Fact? No, I didn't think so.

 

[alkemyst]

Your assumption's about the natural state of "pair bonding" is based in what exactly? Fact? No, I didn't think so.

Pair bonding is real. Across all animals really at times.

Many end up dying when their paired mate does.

That said, many can churn through partners like no tomorrow.

 

[BoberFett]

Pair bonding is real. Across all animals really at times.



Many end up dying when their paired mate does.



That said, many can churn through partners like no tomorrow.

Some animals, yes. Others, no.

 

[alkemyst]

Some animals, yes. Others, no.

hence he saying "at times".

I think you are another uneducated person here though.

I run through women, I love them, I have no need for polygamy though unless the laws were different.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your assumption's about the natural state of "pair bonding" is based in what exactly? Fact? No, I didn't think so.

The situation is analogous to you as say a 6 year old telling. Me that girls are gross and me telling you that one day you are going to take great delight sticking your penis in them, and you at a loss as to what facts I could possibly be talking about. I know more than you do but you always want to make that a contest where you are feeling inferior. Just imagine all the folk in the world who less than you.

I am a nobody and that's enough for me. I see no advantage in competing with you to be the bigger or better nobody. There's kind of a glass ceiling on being a nobody.

 

[alkemyst]

Here is the honest answer. There are some men and women that would be pissed if their SO even lightly flirted with another person.

There are also some that would be pissed if their SO didn't fck or at least try to fck someone that day.

Pick the relationship you want.

Understand polygamy is much deeper than that in our culture.

To allow polygamy, one would have to kill off the crime of adultery. I have been living in an adulterous life for over a year now. She has lived with me for over a year.

I took a plane there, rented a big ass truck and moved her out of that life.

His lawyer just quit the case however, so it may be another 3-6 months until we are out of it.

 

[BoberFett]

I know more than you do

There's that ego again. You are so ego driven it's sad. You believe you know more, when in fact you don't. Sad, sad, little unloved Moonie.

 

[Moonbeam]

There's that ego again. You are so ego driven it's sad. You believe you know more, when in fact you don't. Sad, sad, little unloved Moonie.

I do know more. I know that what you think you know is garbage. You know nothing, just like me, but you don't know that and I do. Think of my ego as being so large I don't need it. Think of me as the greatest winner who ever lived and left the playing field, retired as champion of the world. Think of me as reveling in millions of pages of victory lists, my name at the top, celebratory fireworks at climax filling the skies around me, and there on the millionth page a note that Bober has put on gloves. Know my dearest friend that amidst this gigantic celebration of Moonbeam life I still get up and open the sliding doors to let it out when I hear a fly buzzing and banging against the glass. Funny thing about winners. They like to share.

 

[BoberFett]

I do know more. I know that what you think you know is garbage. You know nothing, just like me, but you don't know that and I do. Think of my ego as being so large I don't need it. Think of me as the greatest winner who ever lived and left the playing field, retired as champion of the world. Think of me as reveling in millions of pages of victory lists, my name at the top, celebratory fireworks at climax filling the skies around me, and there on the millionth page a note that Bober has put on gloves. Know my dearest friend that amidst this gigantic celebration of Moonbeam life I still get up and open the sliding doors to let it out when I hear a fly buzzing and banging against the glass. Funny thing about winners. They like to share.

His delusion grows.

 

[sm625]

The IRS would have a meltdown:

• Single
• Married, traditionally, but filing single
• Married, polygamically, but filing single
• Married, polygamically, but filing traditionally

We would end up with 4700 pages of IRS code just on how to fill out question #1 on tax forms.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The IRS would have a meltdown:

• Single
• Married, traditionally, but filing single
• Married, polygamically, but filing single
• Married, polygamically, but filing traditionally

We would end up with 4700 pages of IRS code just on how to fill out question #1 on tax forms.

I don't see why it would matter to the IRS how many spouses you have. Unless there was special tax law for multiple spouses (and I can't think of a reason there would be) then it would still be the same as now, they just might have to adjust the forms to give room for you to declare more then one spouse.
For example, we don't currently have:

• Single
• Married, traditionally, but filing single
• Married, Same Sex Marriage, but filing single
• Married, Same Sex Marriage, but filing jointly
• Married, Same Sex Marriage, but living in a state that does not recognise SSM, filing jointly

 

[Moonbeam]

Does anybody envision a polygamous world in which a greater proportion of women have multiple husbands rather than the other way round?. I believe that the wonderful scourge of human trafficking in China and India is due to the preponderance of single men who can't find wives owing to the practice of female infanticide.

It is likely to my mind that pair bonding and monogamy aren't just a result of liberal thinking that likes to hypocritically impose correct thinking, but a product of a successful evolutionary strategy. The human brain has a long development period from infancy to self sufficiency. A genetic predilection for monogamy or inborn desire for only one mate may be the foundation upon which we evolved the capacity to think.

Perhaps we shouldn't let the genetic outliers who retain a perhaps more ancient urge to acquire multiple mates mess with success. as it were.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Does anybody envision a polygamous world in which a greater proportion of women have multiple husbands rather than the other way round?. I believe that the wonderful scourge of human trafficking in China and India is due to the preponderance of single men who can't find wives owing to the practice of female infanticide.

It is likely to my mind that pair bonding and monogamy aren't just a result of liberal thinking that likes to hypocritically impose correct thinking, but a product of a successful evolutionary strategy. The human brain has a long development period from infancy to self sufficiency. A genetic predilection for monogamy or inborn desire for only one mate may be the foundation upon which we evolved the capacity to think.

Perhaps we shouldn't let the genetic outliers who retain a perhaps more ancient urge to acquire multiple mates mess with success. as it were.

You are still trying to think of poly as a hierarchical thing, but in practice it rarely is. Stop thinking of it being 1 man married to N wives, or 1 woman married to N men. The reality is much more like several people all married. That more often leads to 'tribe' like marriages where even if one person leaves there are plenty of people to care for children and do the chores.
Your '1 man, 1 woman' strategy is a Hollywood invention not reality, even in today's world. The reality is that the most effective method for raising children is a tribe, and until fairly recently that was what was normal.

 

[TerryMathews]

Does anybody envision a polygamous world in which a greater proportion of women have multiple husbands rather than the other way round?

Google "hotwife" and prepare to be amazed.

The idea that men are more promiscuous is a false stereotype, no different than "black people are thieves".

Hopefully someday you will be as enlightened and intelligent as you claim to be.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are still trying to think of poly as a hierarchical thing, but in practice it rarely is. Stop thinking of it being 1 man married to N wives, or 1 woman married to N men. The reality is much more like several people all married. That more often leads to 'tribe' like marriages where even if one person leaves there are plenty of people to care for children and do the chores.
Your '1 man, 1 woman' strategy is a Hollywood invention not reality, even in today's world. The reality is that the most effective method for raising children is a tribe, and until fairly recently that was what was normal.

I'm not trying to think anything. You have a personal take on the subject you are pushing. I asked a question as to how a likely polygamous world might look like. The one man many wives isn't something I see as the only possibility, but the traditional situation among primate groups, and I linked that to the uniqueness of human evolution. You addresses none of the points I raised, in my opinion.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm not trying to think anything. You have a personal take on the subject you are pushing. I asked a question as to how a likely polygamous world might look like. The one man many wives isn't something I see as the only possibility, but the traditional situation among primate groups, and I linked that to the uniqueness of human evolution. You addresses none of the points I raised, in my opinion.

Okay, here would be my answers:
You see the 'harem' version of poly in primate populations because in that situation size and strength is all that matters. That sort of poly is based on a hierarchy enforced with violence. Others only get a say as far as their ability to win in a physical confrontation. The females don't like who the current 'alpha male' is, they simply get overpowered and raped, other males have only the option of attempting to win a physical confrontation with other males to choose a mate.

Few societies still allow for that type of interaction where the 'harem' version of poly would be common. I hope this addresses your points.

 

[alkemyst]

Your '1 man, 1 woman' strategy is a Hollywood invention not reality, even in today's world. The reality is that the most effective method for raising children is a tribe, and until fairly recently that was what was normal.

1) 1 man/1 woman is not a Hollywood invention.

2) Tribes did not usually inter-copulate. Man has formed pairings for a long time. Doesn't mean all men and women want them.

The funniest part about a lot of this is most don't even date that want to promote polygamy.

It's all a fabrication in their head on their lives would metamorphoses overnight if they were just allowed to do this.

The easiest way to sample it is to get a g/f and head to a swingers club. If you are a female usually you don't need a date to get in. Very few clubs allow single men.

 

[piasabird]

Alimony and child support is lousy if the man has multiple women and gets them all pregnant. Woman are only benefitted if the man makes a lot of money and can afford to support multiple women and their children. All of our current laws from tax to welfare are designed for a monogamous society. A Poly society might be beneficial to increase population in a society with more women than men. For example in a country where most the men have to fight wars all the time and get killed, you could take care of widows.

 

[Moonbeam]

Okay, here would be my answers:
You see the 'harem' version of poly in primate populations because in that situation size and strength is all that matters. That sort of poly is based on a hierarchy enforced with violence. Others only get a say as far as their ability to win in a physical confrontation. The females don't like who the current 'alpha male' is, they simply get overpowered and raped, other males have only the option of attempting to win a physical confrontation with other males to choose a mate.

Few societies still allow for that type of interaction where the 'harem' version of poly would be common. I hope this addresses your points.

My point is that monogamy is an evolutionary success, practiced by humans for millions of years, a corner stone of our development of self aware intelligence, that it is universal, not religious based, and a part of our genetic makeup. I believe that what you face is the overwhelming evidence of the human naturalness of the pair bond instinct with a new age invention that has little natural substance.

Furthermore, I would think, most all villages of human invention are composed of pair bonded individuals. In a baboon society, for example, a small number of dominant males unite in the face of threat, whereas among human society all the males are in play and have a stake. The result is that most the animals that pray on humans have been driven to extinction.

In short, I suspect that any fanciful notion of polygamous relationships, regardless of how idealistically conceived, goes against the natural human grain and won't find wide appeal. It is you then, in my opinion, that are irritating the pigs by wishing them to fly. I think we are stuck in the mud of out real human nature. If mud is my fate, I want to sing poems to it.

Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou.