Interesting Gallup Poll on Morality

Remove all ads!

Actually, the only reason I recommended checking out the wiki entry for the FLDS church (to which that link was pointing) was because it details how they practice polygamy without fear of legal reprisal.....a point on which T2 and I do not agree. No judgment whatsoever was intended. Nor were there any ulterior motives behind that post beyond my attempting to prove that there are people who engage in polygamy without fear of government interference.

 

Morally speaking, many people believe that all number of things are wrong -- adultery, pre-marital sex, gambling, and yes, even the hot button here, polygamy. But their behaviour often does not match up to their ideals. That's because people are human and flawed.

The question that seems to be being asked here is when should the Government step in? At what point does governmental silence imply tacit acceptance of a behaviour? If a behaviour deviates from the norm, how willing are we to accept it? In the case of polygamy, the voice of the majority was clearly heard -- "that drastic a deviation from the norm will not be tolerated in our societies!" is what that voice said. For a long time, the same thing was said of homosexuality, but now, as a society we tolerate it even though many people still believe that it is morally wrong.

What kills me about the entire polygamy question (which hasn't been a serious legal question for decades) is that people who statistics show have multiple partners, both before their marriage (premarital sex) and then after (infidelity or the now infamous 'open relationship) act as though actually MARRYING the people you sleep with would cause the end of society as we know it. That, to me, is illogical in the extreme.

Finally, I have to say that although the vast majority of historians like to say that polygamy is always exploitive, I don't think a universal statement is fair -- it likely works sometimes, if only rarely.

 

Can is a theoretical question. Of course they can. But because they are illegal, they don't have a means to test whether this will actually be the case, and only have one or two over the top minorities to judge by. Mind you if homosexuals were judged by the most outlandish of their number, we might not have to worry so much about gay rights either...

Technically, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights to prosecute them. By whatever gives the Government the obligation to ignore this, the same obligation exists to ban gay marriage...

 

What the heck are you talking about? This is real simple, Gnarff. The government is not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Unless the government ceases to be involved in all marriages (which I'm not against, actually), it is practicing discrimination by sexual orientation since government marriage is a government institution. Polygamy is different, because not legalizing it doesn't discriminate against anyone. In order to actually discriminate against polygamists, the government would have to deny them a right that other people actually get. Not a single person in the US or Canada is currently able to tie themselves legally and financially to 2 people concurrently. If there were, than it would be discrimination if polygamy were illegal. But there isn't.

All that aside, Gnarff, if the only way gay marriage can be legalized is to also legalize polygamy, I'm all for it.....but polygamists shouldn't gain any additional tax benefits (beyond the normal benefits of marriage) for their lifestyle. The irony, here, is that (assuming that we aren't adding a "Married to Multiple Spouses filing Conjointly" category to the tax code) if we legalized polygamy and polygamists actually legally married, they would actually lose a lot of their benefits.....since all of a polygamists additional wives (at least the ones with kids) are currently treated as single mothers for tax and government benefit purposes. Since the government actually caps how much money it will give to a single family, I doubt very many polygamists will be rushing to have their unions legally recognized. The amount of government money polygamous families receive on average is positively staggering, since the government considers each additional (and usually non-working) wife that has any kids a single mother (thus qualifying each additional wife for housing assistance, food stamps, welfare, title 19....).

Hell, I think I may have just convinced myself that we need to legalize polygamy! Large polygamous families who legally marry won't be able to rip the government off to the tune of more then 20K per year, anymore. Not only should we legalize polygamy, but we also need to introduce common law polygamy into the equation as well, so when polygamous families try to rip off the government by not legally marrying, we'll be able to head that off, too, by declaring them common law spouses. Legalize polygamy!

[ June 22, 2007, 12:58: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

There are polygamous communities that live the lifestyle without it being legally recognized. I fail to see why these communities can't serve as examples? They certainly provide strong evidence that polygamous relationships are not by default equal. There are also a great number of countries that have legalized polygamy, needless to say that they won't help your case.

 

After mulling this aspect over in my head for some time (it gets boring when you're bed-ridden with a cold ) I'd have to agree.

A plural marriage might only really be viable in the hypothetical - because of the likelihood for some parts of the relationship feeling 'left out' or getting jealous. It certainly wouldn't be at all stable unless every partner was fully 'in love' with every other partner (and less likely to fall to jealousy and desire to put the others' happiness forward), as well as a structure larger than three people (to cut down on the 'odd one out'), but even so...

Looking on the great statistics we have for keeping mere dual relationships going stably, I think we'll still have to keep the "healthy, stable plural relationship" on the mental drawing board...


And as such, I think this would be a very strong argument to not waste time and effort in legalizing something that is inherently unstable. *shrug*

 

Drew, for a very long time, not a single person in either the U.S. or Canada was able to legally bind himself (or herself) to someone else of the same gender. That didn't stop them from claiming discrimination. The logic a proponent of polygamy would make is "others marry whom they choose. Why can't I?" This is the same logic homosexuals have used for a very long time.

As a point of clarification, I do not advocate either practice being legally recognized by the state.

 

The big difference, though, is that the government is explicitly disallowed from denying a right to someone based on their sexual orientation or gender. They are not explicitly forbidden from limiting the number of people who jointly qualify for a specific legal benefit. I'm largely unconcerned, though, since I am now thoroughly convinced that legalizing polygamy would be best for everybody (except, ironically, polygamists).

 

This is real simple, Drew. The Givernment is not allowed to interfere in religious docrine and practice. Wait a minute, they did, therefore the Government can do things even though they aren't allowed to. And in some cases, they MUST do what they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to...

Yes, it does. It discriminates against those of religions that allow, praqctice or even require plural marriages.

The first wife the man can legally marry, but subsequent wives are not given the same priveledges. That is discrimination.

There you go with the discrimination again. A man with multiple wives is liable for support to the kids and would likely have to provide some support to the wives while they are pregnant. That means additional depentdants due to his plural marriage. To only let him claim from one marriage discriminates against him as there may be people with the same number if not more kids from only one spouse. For example, a man with three wives fathers 5 kids. He has 2 with his first wife he claims, but is out of luck for the other three, but the man with one wife and 5 kids can claim them all...

But the government won't let them legally marry, so they have to do something. Taking away the handouts is actually the fair thing to do, but giving tax deductions to balance this. I should point out that inthe early days of the LDS, the man had to be able to support the additional wife and children before the marriage was approved by priesthood authority...

And that might just solve the gay marriage issue too. Two guys live together as a couple, then they get the benefits of a common law relationship. Any Ceremony therefore would only be social to their unique sub culture.

They do point out the things that need to be "adjusted" to make it work. For example the system abuse that Drew pointed out, or the Gender issues. To legalize it or enable it socially would be a bigger hiccup than anything Gay Marriage could bring, but travelling that road you obligate society to that...

I understand that, and doubt I could do any better in that situation, but the right should exist for those that wish to try.

 

Well, there we disagree - and the rest of my post continued on to explain WHY...

 

They can. It doesn't mean that they should. Nor does it mean that what they did in 1896 was OK.

Let me get this straight, Gnarff. Unless the government grants polygamists a tax benefit that no one else in the country gets, we are discriminating against them? Whatever.

No, it isn't. Since no one else in this country is allowed to commit bigamy, she isn't being denied any rights. Now, if bigamy were legal, you'd have a point.

Gnarff, you don't even have to be married to claim dependents. This isn't what I'm talking about. As a married man, the amount of money my household can make before moving up a tax bracket is nearly doubled. What I am arguing is that a man with 27 wives shouldn't be allowed to make 27 times as much money before jumping to the next bracket. He should still only get double before moving up to the next tax bracket.

 

Um, I agree that one shouldn't, but IIRC a man can't, because since polygamy is illegal in the U.S., the IRS doesn't even have any OPTION on their forms to claim for multiple wives. (maybe as dependents, but IIRC that wouldn't have the same effect, would it?)

If plural marriages were legalized, all it would require is a clarification of the Tax Code to close this potential loophole. To argue that THIS is a reason to continue forbidding plural marriage is rather awkward and not really strengthening your case at all; and I'm on your side, Drew!

 

@Jaded Empath: Context is everything. Read the statement I was responding to again. Gnarff was assuming that, when I stated that Polygamous unions shouldn't grant additional tax benefits, that I was arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to claim their children from other wives as dependents. That just isn't true since, as I mentioned before, you don't even have to be married to do that. My point was about what the effects of polygamy should be on their tax bracket.

 

But the decision was made, and I should expect that it would be upheld. I am willing to sacrifice the right of plural marriage to preserve the sanctity of Marriage.

I didn't say that the rest of the country couldn't seek the same benefits in the same situation. But to make the opportunity available to all. Then you aren't intruding on any groups religious views, and those that think it's wrong don't have to choose that.

That's where I'm arguing FOR bigamy or polygamy. If you don't like that, then the compromise is that the current definition of marriage stands, that would exclude both changes...

Maybe not 27 times, but the size of the family in question would affect the threshold of the tax bracket. For example a family of 4 (assume man, woman, 2 kids) would have one threshold, while a family of 7 (man, woman, 5 kids) would have a higher threshold. I'm not saying that it would be 27 times for 27 wives (that would actually be quite rare if it were legalized), but there would be a formulae involving the number of adults and the number of kids in the family. The expectation is that the adults would work...

But that is the responsibility of the IRS and the government. They want to change the current, rigid definition of marriage, then they have to entertain the changes for other minorities or maintain the same laws unchanged. This changing it for one group and not for another is discrimination.

 

You really have no idea about how the graduated income tax system works, do you? Either that, or you don't actually read my posts. This discussion keeps reminding me of a certain Ben Franklin quote which is proving itself more and more pertinent.. Ben's right. I really shouldn't bother.