Homosexuality and Polygamy

[dan]

A huge melee is being raised about the legality of a very unorthodox form of marriage. This has been done before, and that outcome will play a role in the present situation. Look up Reynolds v. The United States (1878) and read over it. What are the reasons the Supreme Court cites for banning polygamy? How are they similar to an argument that can be raised against "same-sex marriages"?

What do you think? If polygamy is illegal should "same-sex marriages" also be? Is there enough of a difference to grant homosexuals the right to marry while still denying polygamists that right?

Be it known that I am in no way a proponent of polygamy, I just think this is an interesting corrolation.

 

[dolly]

If polygamy is illegal should "same-sex marriages" also be? Is there enough of a difference to grant homosexuals the right to marry while still denying polygamists that right?

If you follow with that line of thinking, then should we give polygamists the right to mary because we allow heterosexuals to marry?

Polygamy is completely different than homosexuality. There are reasons to not allow polygamy which are not even remotely relevant to homosexuality. This is why if we allow homs to marry, pols don't necessarily earn the right to marry as well.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Dolly, what would you say are the big differences in the arguments of homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage?

 

[Runt]

I see nothing wrong with either polygamy or homosexuality. Objectively. Polygamy can be bad FOR SOCIETY because of welfare issues (large families, which most polygamous unions result in, can sometimes require welfare). That is my problem with polygamy--overpopulation. Homosexuality, on the other hand, I see NOTHING wrong with.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I agree Runt. Personally, polygamy is not something I would be interested in, but it doesn't affect me personally if someone else wants to do it. In reality, unless there are religious reasons (Mormons) I think most people would shy away from the option of polygamy due to issues of jealousy among spouses, etc. I think humans naturally prefer one incredibly close relationship rather than numerous semi-close ones. It would take special people to turn a polygamous marriage into something deeper than a harem I think.

 

[Pah]

A huge melee is being raised about the legality of a very unorthodox form of marriage. This has been done before, and that outcome will play a role in the present situation. Look up Reynolds v. The United States (1878) and read over it. What are the reasons the Supreme Court cites for banning polygamy? How are they similar to an argument that can be raised against "same-sex marriages"?

The conviction of Renolds was confirmed on technical grounds and is absent a holding on the constitutionality of the law under which he was convicted. It spoke, instead, to the constitutionality of the trial procedure. Reynolds does nothing for opponents of homosexual marriage or proponents of polygamy.

There is no simularity to the case presented to the Massachusetts Supreme Court (which is the only one of record that mandates marriage be not be denied homosexuals).

What do you think? If polygamy is illegal should "same-sex marriages" also be? Is there enough of a difference to grant homosexuals the right to marry while still denying polygamists that right?

I'm afraid the "cart is before the horse". The question should be "Is there enough of a difference to grant polygamists the right to marry while permitting homosexuals that right?"

Given that Lawerance v Texas overturned the remaining laws againgst homosexual activity and Massachusetts has used US Supreme Court precedent that the nation-wide prohibitions against homosexual marriage will fall as well. These are precedents are grouped under the category of "private rights". It would seem that polygamy will follow the same path - rights and freedom will be recognized for those who wish to marry more than one spouse.

Be it known that I am in no way a proponent of polygamy, I just think this is an interesting corrolation.

Me too! (I'm indifferent to polygamy at this point)

-pah-

 

[dan]

The case cited actually gives two reasons for not allowing polygamy. The first reason is that polygamy is better suited to "African and Asiatic peoples." Why would the Supreme Court say that? Because those countries are not Christian (like we are; or, at least, like the U.S. was back then). The other reason it cites for banning the practice is the opinion of one college professor. This professor believes that polygamy leads to "static despotism" (whatever that is). THose are the only two arguments lobbed into the fray. Everything else is legal procedure (and a little bit about how England doesn't like polygamy).

Granted there are differences, but how would the Supreme Court have to compare the two? Both are unorthodox practices. It cannot be proven that homosexuality has anything to do with genetics, so saying polygamy is a preference and homosexuality a genetic inevitability is not a valid argument.

The stress of welfare is not really relevant. You know what demographic uses the vast majority of our nation's welfare right now? Rural elderly folks. Not inner-city families; not young pregnant moms; not unemployed men. Elderly people living on farms take up most of our welfare.

On the surface they appear to be unrelated, but if you dig really deep you find some interesting stuff.