What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is marriage between a man and a woman the same as a man and many women? (1 Viewer)

JAA

JAA

Footballguy
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/utah-gov-signs-law-aimed-at-polygamy/

I decided to put this in the politics forum as my goal is to hear from conservatives regarding this topic.  Specifically, if you believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman, how do you feel about marriage of a man and many women?  I realize that the man-woman marriage topic is not a simple partly line, however I think if we were painting broad strokes, it is more of an important topic to the conservative side.  Specifically, I have been told /paraphrasing/ "marriage is a sacred term to describe the bond between a man and a woman"

Full disclosure, I am someone who believes marriage can be between any 2 consenting adults.  I do not believe it is OK for marriage between 1 and many adults.  I disagree but respect other cultures who allow this and am somewhat versed in the middle-eastern side of this.

 
No, it's not, and I'm not sure what the Utah governor is doing. It's been said, at least by Scalia, that the legal precedent set out in Lawrence v. Texas permits this sort of thing. It could be proving a point for all I know. Or, much like other things, it's Occam's razor and Utah and its history of polygamy is coming to the fore again.

I think there was a S. Ct. case in the late nineteenth century that covered polygamy and was on point, but may be not binding now. 

 
rockaction said:
No, it's not, and I'm not sure what the Utah governor is doing. It's been said, at least by Scalia, that the legal precedent set out in Lawrence v. Texas permits this sort of thing. It could be proving a point for all I know. Or, much like other things, it's Occam's razor and Utah and its history of polygamy is coming to the fore again.

I think there was a S. Ct. case in the late nineteenth century that covered polygamy and was on point, but may be not binding now. 
Click to expand...
Agree.  Also telling that SCOTUS refused to take the case.  Worried about the outcome?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Why not just let people live their lives the way they choose?  If some guy in Utah marries three women and everybody is happy with that arrangement, what business is it of yours?
Click to expand...
Good question.  I dont have a great answer.  First, I guess it doesnt pass the sniff test.  Kinda like other "sniff test" laws like having a min age for driving, drinking, smoking, voting, etc.  Im sure there are some people that could get this to work, and it wouldnt be abused.  Just like I believe that some kids could handle driving before 15.

 
I'm extremely liberal in my views of marriage.  People should do what makes them happy.  If they want to marry multiple wives, so be it.  I'm sure the govt will find a way to tax that.  

I also think marriage is an outdated practice that will fade away over time, but I recognize that is an extreme view.  

 
JAA said:
Agree.  Also telling that SCOTUS refused to take the case.  Worried about the outcome?
Click to expand...
Huh. Sounds like the plaintiffs didn't have standing due to mootness. That's my guess -- that the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on the legal reasoning and merits of the case; merely that they refused to accept the parties to the suit.

 
There should be 2 types of marriages:

First, the state sponsored version that is nothing more than partnership formation and joint legal responsibilities/benefits.  If you want more than 2 for this partnership, have at it

Second, the religious variety

Only that first option matters to the state.  The second one is just personal for you and your spouse(s) and your beliefs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't care what consenting adults do with each other, as long as it does not affect the rest of society.

In terms of governmental benefits, I think it should be limited to 1 spouse per person.

 
boots11234 said:
Between man and an animal will be next.  I mean if love is the only qualifier why not?
Click to expand...
I don't think "love is the only qualifier."  Indeed, I'd suggest love isn't in the mix at all.  I believe free will and the agency to make an informed choice are the key criteria.  As such, I don't see how animals, children, or coma patients will be ever be able to get married.

 
That one guy said:
There should be 2 types of marriages:

First, the state sponsored version that is nothing more than partnership formation and joint legal responsibilities/benefits.  If you want more than 2 for this partnership, have at it

Second, the religious variety

Only that first option matters to the state.  The second one is just personal for you and your spouse(s) and your beliefs
Click to expand...
Yes, but the state has built in default contract language for couples that generally works whether its one man and one woman or two men or two women.  Much of these defaults don't work when there isn't the obvious one choice.  So if you want to form multiple partnerships or partnerships with more than two parties then I think there needs to be legal responsibilities to spell out how these works when it comes to settling disputes, when it comes to inheritance, when it comes to "power of attorney", etc., etc.   Couples can shift the burden of this onto the state as the terms have been established over time.   Other arrangements should not fall on the government to do more that flip coins or roll dice.    That is enter into whatever relationships you want and work for those involved, but don't expect society to know how things are supposed to work in your particular out of the ordinary arrangement when things fail.

(Of course this is assuming that this practice is rare and the issues of state security where there is such a shortage of partners to go around that it leads to additional costly violence don't exist.  That would also be a state concern.)

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Sheriff Bart said:
The only reason there's push back by anyone other than religious types is because of health care costs. 
Click to expand...
The current health care insurance system ties people to their jobs and distorts their personal relationships.  Its a massive issue affecting our lives here that is not even a tiny consideration for most other citizens in the western world.  I have a couple friends I'm pretty certain are only still married because of health care concerns. 

 
Max Power said:
I'm extremely liberal in my views of marriage.  People should do what makes them happy.  If they want to marry multiple wives, so be it.  I'm sure the govt will find a way to tax that.  

I also think marriage is an outdated practice that will fade away over time, but I recognize that is an extreme view.  
Click to expand...
It seems as much a legal means to protect people if they split, die, get sick as it is some holy bond.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Why not just let people live their lives the way they choose?  If some guy in Utah marries three women and everybody is happy with that arrangement, what business is it of yours?
Click to expand...
I heard a compelling argument that allowing polygamy ends up leading to social strife due to the increasing lack of availability of partners due to the most qualified (whatever it means) folks gathering up vast numbers of eligible mates, leaving little for the folks who aren't as qualified.

 
adonis said:
I heard a compelling argument that allowing polygamy ends up leading to social strife due to the increasing lack of availability of partners due to the most qualified (whatever it means) folks gathering up vast numbers of eligible mates, leaving little for the folks who aren't as qualified.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter.  You're not entitled to sex with anyone without their consent.  In the incredibly unlikely scenario that one or two Chads monopolizes all the women, we'll come back and revisit this.  Otherwise it's just a silly hypothetical.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Doesn't matter.  You're not entitled to sex with anyone without their consent.  In the incredibly unlikely scenario that one or two Chads monopolizes all the women, we'll come back and revisit this.  Otherwise it's just a silly hypothetical.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen my calves. KA-POW! 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Why not just let people live their lives the way they choose?  If some guy in Utah marries three women and everybody is happy with that arrangement, what business is it of yours?
Click to expand...
Because some of the same people who think the government is tracking their every move think its ok if they themselves track everyone elses moves.

As long as they dont have loud parties or barking dogs they can have 12 ways in their rumpus room.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Fact: there are more women than men.  That's why God created lesbians.
Click to expand...
Fact: there are more males born than females. (And that doesn't even account for selective abortions.)

But due to the reckless nature of the male gender, the ratio gradually gets smaller and smaller until women become the predominant sex by the time they're 40.

 
parrot said:
There are men who want to be married to more than one woman.  I think this is more an argument for improving our mental health care system than our marriage laws.  
Click to expand...
Being married to one woman at one time was more than enough for me

#no2ndmarriage

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Hypothetical: Does Japan's Birth Rate Crisis Justify The Permanent Banning Of All Their Abortions? (6/22/22 00:50 PST)
Replies
4
Views
489
Zigg
Z
GordonGekko
The Political Controversy Of Matt Walsh's Documentary "What Is A Woman?" (6/8/22 9:42 PST)
2
Replies
65
Views
1K
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Biden:“I Don’t Think That A Woman Has The Sole Right To Say What Should Happen To Her Body.” (5/4/22 17:30PST)
Replies
40
Views
1K
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top