Can anyone name a single legitimate reason why polygamy is illegal?

Please, you have no idea.

 

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Everyone who thus tries to use their own religious beliefs to dictate to the Government what should or should not be a secular law...is violating the ideals of the founding fathers and stepping on the right of freedom of religion. Just because you feel something is wrong based on your faith, doesn't mean that you can impose your will on others.

 

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

So just how many do you figure there were?

Then surely you will not hesitate to provide some basis other than faith for imposing, by way of (I presume) your support for age of consent laws, your will on those who deem it good to have sex with children.

 

There is no religious tenant that have any actual age listed as far as consent. Our age of consent laws are based on overall social norms, albeit maybe out of date. I will agree that they need to be updated in some states, but none of them are religious based. All issues on adults having sex with children is based on the concept that children are not mature enough to give informed consent, a psychological basis, not a religious one.

 

It's one thing to impose ones own morals on something that is legal but offensive to one (denying access to certain movies, banning books, dictating what's people can wear, etc) and entirely another to enforce something that our elected officials have put laws in place against.

And as for the whole basing my support for age of consent laws? Psychological reasons. The fact that psychological medicine has determined that below a certain average age, children do not have the life experiences or the emotional maturity to fully understand consent. Coupled with the fact that the law prevents adults from coupling with children...

And before you jump on the whole "well polygamy is illegal" bit, we in the poly community understand that it is illegal and the only thing we can do is to try to have it legalized before we do anything (which we are not really pushing for at the moment) and we simply enjoy polyamourous relationships (which are not illegal in the US) and call them marriages in every way but the legality.

 

Nope, moral police. If everyone agree's to it, go for it.

Prayers out to guys who WANT more than one wife though

 

Feel bad for the ladies who have to put up with more than one man.

 

I suppose, but I have no idea what your point is.

So if the day ever comes when it makes a determination to the contrary, you'll be OK with repeal of AoC laws. Right?

So you favor AoC laws because they're there?

And the pedo community can't do likewise because...?

Better you should pray for their offspring.

 

lol +1

 

No, I would never be "ok" with such. However if it ever became legal I would have no choice but to accept that it would then be considered the law of the land. Frankly if the US ever does such...I'd SERIOUSLY consider leaving.

No, I am in favor with AoC laws because I feel that it is wrong to **** children. Because Psychological Medical Science has shown that doing such damages children. That they are unable to understand the impliocations in consenting to such and as such can not give informed consent.

Because there are laws against adults having sexual relations with children. There are no laws against adults loving other adults. The only law in effect...is the law against multiple marriage. And as long as that legal line is not crossed...It's fine.

When Pedos have sex with children, they are crossing the legal line and are doing something illegal.

The only real problem with poly groupings...is that some people are morally against such and frankly that's a bullcrap argument because there are people who are morally against any form of sex apart from missionary position and only then for procreation.

Why? Because they're raised in a happy and loving environment?

 

Seperating church and state was a dire mistake for both s

Something I have had trouble understanding, why is the simple fact that "because we agree/disagree" ever good enough for religious human beings? Why do they always want there to be some greater external validation for their opinions and actions?

 

Since the law is about the maturity of an individual to be mature enough to give informed consent, I can see no way for such laws to be outright repealed. Now if the psychological field could prove that the average kid at age X was capable of making such an informed consent, I would be alright with the AoC laws she to be altered to reflect that. Additionally, I am all for having an exception made by a court for any individual who can prove they have sufficient maturity to make such decisions. We actually already do such, when we allow a child to receive a legal emancipation from their parents.

I favor AoC laws because they cover the average maturity age for decision making.

 

But when I asked whether you'd be OK with repealing such laws if "psychological medicine" made the opposite determination down the road, you said no. So which is it?

But pedophilia doesn't necessitate sexual congress with children, only sexual attraction to children; so if pedophiles who don't molest children "try to have it legalized before [they] do anything", how are they different from you guys?

 

First of all...I highly doubt that would ever happen. Secondly...I would never be in favor of such a repeal of the law. I would however have to accept that it would then be the law of the land. I do not have to like a law in order to obey it.

And I did say that if such were to be passed...I'd be looking for a new country to call home.

Pedophilia is legal. You can not arrest someone for being a pedophile. You can only arrest a person for being a pedophile who is acting upon it, for doing certain acts. Being a pedophile in of itself is not an arresting offense. The problem for pedophiles is the simple fact that apart from wanking to what is only in their imaginations...nothing else they can do is legal.

Poly on the other hand, it is legal to love each other. It is legal to love multiple people. It is legal to have sex with multiple people. It is legal for multiple people to live together.

The only thing that isn't legal is the actual marriage as defined by the government.

A pedophile would want to have legalized certain activities that a child can not consent to because they're too young to understand what's going on. Poly would want legalized one activity between consenting adults...and they're not really pushing for that right now.

 

I'm against marriages altogether and see no reasons why it must be an exception for polygamy.

 

None of this is news, and none of it is responsive.

 

Agree with these opinions?

https://www.divorcecorp.com/child-custody-2/child-support/child-support-income/

 

Not even going past post number 1. It is illegal because it's in the best interest of the male to be verboten in the long run. No man should have to endure this kind of pain.

 

Why laws against polygamy?

National sanity?

I have one wife and have a hard time holding on to my sanity. I'm sure she says the same regarding one husband

 

A "hypothetical" situation; the income numbers have been changed to protect the innocent.

1) The wife leaves a 4 year-old daughter and a 1 year-old son with her husband every night while she goes to happy hour and parties. She comes home every night at 10pm.

2) After three years of this, she wants a divorce.

3) She earns $80K per year, he earns $70K per year.

4) The divorce decree awards her 58% custody, he gets 42% custody (but the kids actually spend 50% of their time with each parent).

5) The divorce decree also says the ex-husband must pay 25% of his salary to her, so now she's at $97,500 per year and he's at $52,500 per year.

6) Even with the child support, the ex-wife pays nothing for soccer lessons, music lessons, clothing, flu shots, cell phones, medical insurance, dental insurance, etc. She also keeps no food in her house, and their son is officially diagnosed as "malnourished" by his pediatrician. Because of that, the ex-husband has to take the kids to restaurants for dinner several nights each week. With the additional expenses, the ex-husband now pays 50% of his salary in child support. He loses his house and gets an apartment.

I'm not in favor of any child support. Why should one parent get to go on cruises and the other is evicted from their house? Just split all costs 50-50.

 

What state is this in? Texas? This kind of BS from the courts is quickly disappearing. Either it's a horrible jurisdiction or malpractice from his attorney, but you don't see much of this anymore these days.

 

Oh, it's real.

The courts hate men. Am I bitter? A little. But I'm not materialistic, so it doesn't bother me that much. No one better give me any crap about women not having equal rights. That's all bullish-t. The courts always favor women.

 

I'm glad I didn't say the client was a dumbass. How long ago did this happen?

 

A long time ago. My kids are young adults now. I don't pay anything anymore.

Inhired two attorneys, one male and one female. They both said the courts hate men and I got the best deal possible.

 

Ah...........like I thought. Quite a while ago. Things have changed. It's weird, women who deserve child support can't get it, ones who don't get alimony and the house. I had a friend back in the early 2000's that got royally screwed by a judge. Had a start up cable company. Wife got caught screwing around (on video and audio) and the judge ruined him. Forced a sale of the business when it was on the cusp of him being a multi-millionaire at a big loss. Comcast bought it from the vulture that picked the company up for pennies on the dollar. I still believe that judge got the big payola. No one ever accused the legal profession of being virtuous.