Sidebar

Would you vote to legalize Polygamy? If not, why not?

M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
As I said in the SCOTUS thread. In our current society I think the government should get out of the definition business altogether. There should be a way for people to enter into a shared living arrangement/beneficiary contract (and defined as such to avoid using religious terms) without any reference to sexual relations. There also should be required escape clauses to allow people to terminate those contracts (and also defined as such, again to avoid using religious terms). If any group of people want to pool their recourses so be it. Like others have pointed out said I believe there should be an age limit to enter these contracts.

If someone wants to enter a Christian marriage (or any other religious commitment) that should be a separate commitment in a separate system between them and God. People should also be free to recognize those, or not without any government action.

While my positions on what I believe God wants are well documented, my positions on people having the God given choice to do otherwise are too. As everyone, I would prefer to live in a society where everyone agrees with my views, but I can't always get what I want.

So the answer is no. I would not vote to legalize polygamy any more than I would vote to legalize gay marriage. When those terms are used and celebrated by my government, I believe my government is imposing a religion, or religious belief on me.
 
Last edited:
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
To the extent that it would erode social stability over time, I would vote no.

Would the number of unmarried men increase? Would income and wealth inequality increase? Would the role of the father be diminished?
 
81usaf92

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,375
31,745
187
South Alabama
Displaced Bama Fan said:
I disagree. I think the Courts will rule on polygamy as well as overturn the Texas federal judge's ruling on the illegality of Obama's immigration amnesty program. I think his legacy is solidified for whatever that may be.
Click to expand...
The problem with polygamy is that it hasnt got the amount of traction gay rights and immigration. In the Western World polygamy hasnt been a common practice in western civilizations other than barbaric tribes and a few weird outliers. Plus it has been connected with some of the most infamous United States Cults so it isnt as popular of an idea as gay rights. The Mormons are getting their justification off of Abraham, Issac, David, and Solomon, but they were Eastern World people in which marriages were often done for status and alliances. homo-sexual relationships were way more common in the Western world than polygamy, so gay rights werent that unexpected.

As for illegal immigration... It falls under that same grey area that marriage did in that the constitution doesnt define it, but I tend to think if it actually goes to SCOTUS , then the federal courts ruling would most likely be upheld in favor of Texas. Thats mainly because the heat the 5 judges are getting for the ruling friday.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/26/politics/obama-immigration-texas-federal-appeals-court/
 
Last edited:
Displaced Bama Fan

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,344
39
167
Shiner, TX
Tide1986 said:
To the extent that it would erode social stability over time, I would vote no.

Would the number of unmarried men increase? Would income and wealth inequality increase? Would the role of the father be diminished?
Click to expand...
The government has already done it's part to diminish the role of the father thanks to public assistance and the strings attached to that. I would think to a certain degree, polygamy may actually insure a father is in the house and if several people in the house are working as well as some that stay at home, that may actually present a more stable environment for the family financially as well as emotionally with at least stay at home mom...however that arrangement may be set up.
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,626
39,856
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
mittman said:
As I said in the SCOTUS thread. In our current society I think the government should get out of the definition business altogether. There should be a way for people to enter into a shared living arrangement/beneficiary contract (and defined as such to avoid using religious terms) without any reference to sexual relations. There also should be required escape clauses to allow people to terminate those contracts (and also defined as such, again to avoid using religious terms). If any group of people want to pool their recourses so be it. Like others have pointed out said I believe there should be an age limit to enter these contracts.

If someone wants to enter a Christian marriage (or any other religious commitment) that should be a separate commitment in a separate system between them and God. People should also be free to recognize those, or not without any government action.

While my positions on what I believe God wants are well documented, my positions on people having the God given choice to do otherwise are too. As everyone, I would prefer to live in a society where everyone agrees with my views, but I can't always get what I want.

So the answer is no. I would not vote to legalize polygamy any more than I would vote to legalize gay marriage. When those terms are used and celebrated by my government, I believe my government is imposing a religion, or religious belief on me.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, Albritton, along with some co-sponsors introduced a bill this spring to do just that - convert all marriages to civil contracts to be recorded by the probate judge. IOW, the same thing I've been saying for years - get government out of the marriage business altogether. When you mix religion and politics, you get - politics...
 
Crimson1967

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,765
9,960
187
I don' get to vote in the issue. Mrs. 1967 said it would be remaining illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
TIDE-HSV said:
Interestingly enough, Albritton, along with some co-sponsors introduced a bill this spring to do just that - convert all marriages to civil contracts to be recorded by the probate judge. IOW, the same thing I've been saying for years - get government out of the marriage business altogether. When you mix religion and politics, you get - politics...
Click to expand...
Yup. There was a time in our country and society that the vast majority (if not all) of the citizens were in agreement about the basis of marriage. This is no longer the case and IMO civic government should reflect that, otherwise be are back at a de facto government endorsed religion (yes I do mean without lawful authority). It seems that at least one of the candidates agrees with this approach:

https://www.randpaul.com/news/rand-...-out-of-the-marriage-business-altogether-time

Not that I am going to vote for him because we agree on one issue, but it is a point in his favor for me.
 
D

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
10,041
1,817
187
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
Many posts are pointing to one husband and multiple wives; however, polygamy could mean one wife and many husbands as well...or all wives or all husbands for that matter.

I can see more battles coming up with employee benefits and covered dependents.
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
day-day said:
Many posts are pointing to one husband and multiple wives; however, polygamy could mean one wife and many husbands as well...or all wives or all husbands for that matter.

I can see more battles coming up with employee benefits and covered dependents.
Click to expand...
Polyandry is rare in comparison. Not saying it doesn't or wouldn't occur, but historically it's not commonplace.
 
MOAN

MOAN

All-American
Aug 30, 2010
2,423
232
87
Swearengin, Alabama, United States
I probably need more than one wife to keep me up, but don't desire sex from the one I got much less any more! But I would abstain from voting as even if you could have more than one wife I would not! But that don't mean you don't so go for it if that is what you want! Frankly my dear I got a headache!!! ;)
 
D

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
10,041
1,817
187
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
Tide1986 said:
Polyandry is rare in comparison. Not saying it doesn't or wouldn't occur, but historically it's not commonplace.
Click to expand...
Since polygamy by definition is not limited to one husband and multiple wives a discussion of laws and rules regarding it would have to take that into account.

Can you imagine how even more complicated divorce trials will get?
 
seebell

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
MOAN said:
I probably need more than one wife to keep me up, but don't desire sex from the one I got much less any more! But I would abstain from voting as even if you could have more than one wife I would not! But that don't mean you don't so go for it if that is what you want! Frankly my dear I got a headache!!! ;)
Click to expand...
:biggrin::biggrin: Sign up for Obamacare. You might get some free Viagra. But beware of a you know what lasting more than four hours!:eek2:

I'm not sure how I would vote. I lean toward no. No reason really.
 
CajunCrimson

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
26,791
21,591
337
Breaux Bridge, La
seebell said:
:biggrin::biggrin: Sign up for Obamacare. You might get some free Viagra. But beware of a you know what lasting more than four hours!:eek2:

I'm not sure how I would vote. I lean toward no. No reason really.
Click to expand...
You do realize it's not free, right? I'm paying for it...... (heavy sigh!)
 
Relayer

Relayer

Hall of Fame
Mar 25, 2001
7,096
1,294
287
tide power fan said:
In todays world I see no reason you shouldn't have it, I am sure I wouldn't approve of it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I wouldn't vote for it either.

However, at present the people's vote on these matters means little. All it takes to make law in this country, really, is 5 votes. That's it.

And if someone sued for it, I don't see how the present SCOTUS could deny it.
 
B

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,467
2,116
187
TIDE-HSV said:
China is going to need it soon as a social instrument to counter past foolishness...
Click to expand...
At current replacement rates Japan, most or all of Europe (I assume that is why their leaders originally had liberal immigration policies) and Russia are headed for distinction. I guess at their current rate so is China, but they're starting off so big they have more wiggle room. I think the U.S. is barely above replacement rate.

To OP: not trying to hijack the thread but T-H's post just triggered some thoughts about which everyone is probably not aware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom