Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Who Didn't See This Coming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
    Are there notable liberal countries in which polygamy is legal? I don't know about that one...
    South Africa.

    South African President Jacob Zuma has been married a total of 6 times. One wife committed suicide and another has since divorced him. he is still married to the other four and IIRC he has another one or two fiancées
    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Raphael View Post
      South Africa.

      South African President Jacob Zuma has been married a total of 6 times. One wife committed suicide and another has since divorced him. he is still married to the other four and IIRC he has another one or two fiancées
      That's an unsettling development.
      Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        THREE-WAY same-sex marriage: Gay Thai men tie the knot in 'fairytale ceremony'
        Neither polygamy nor same-sex marriage are legal in Thailand.

        The amount of self-congratulating going on in this thread is bizarre given this event in no way shows that countries legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to them legalizing polygamy. Thailand has done neither.

        At the moment there are about 50 countries in which polygamous marriage is legal (nearly all of which are Muslim and/or African), and about 20 countries in which same-sex marriage is legal (nearly all of which are Western and historically Christian), and there is currently zero overlap between the two groups (South Africa is almost an exception, as polygamy is tolerated there but not strictly legal).

        So the bizarre notion that legalizing same sex marriage in the West would lead to or cause the legalization of polygamy here, continues to have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          (South Africa is almost an exception, as polygamy is tolerated there but not strictly legal).
          Ummmm it is legal under South Africa Customary Law and specifically the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998. (Speaking as a South african expat)
          Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
          1 Corinthians 16:13

          "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
          -Ben Witherington III

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post

            So the bizarre notion that legalizing same sex marriage in the West would lead to or cause the legalization of polygamy here, continues to have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
            Well what legal reasoning would prevent polygamy, since we have already redefined marriage. And they are already working towards that goal, one step at a time:

            It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country. As I have previously written, plural families present the same privacy and due process concerns faced by gay and lesbian community over criminalization. With this decision, families like the Browns can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah. The Court struck down the provision as violating both the free exercise clause of the first amendment as well as the due process clause. The court specifically struck down language criminalizing cohabitation — the provision that is used to prosecute polygamists. The opinion is over 90 pages and constitutes a major constitutional ruling in protection of individual rights.
            http://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/13...y-law-in-utah/
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Raphael View Post
              Ummmm it is legal under South Africa Customary Law and specifically the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998. (Speaking as a South african expat)
              Well, this is complicated by the fact that SA has 3 different sets of laws governing marriage. A person getting married needs to choose which type of marriage they are entering. Looking at 2011 figures (and rounding), 98% of people choose civil marriage, 2% of people choose customary marriage, and 0% of people choose civil unions.

              Civil marriage (and civil unions) does not permit polygamy, and anyone already in a civil marriage cannot add an additional wife to their marriage. Civil marriage does, however, allow same-sex unions.

              Someone who got married under Customary Law is subsequently allowed to add an additional wife under Customary Law. So polygamy is allowed for the 2% of people who are having customary tribal weddings, but not allowed for everyone else.

              As far as I can tell, Customary Law does not allow same-sex unions (since, as far as we know, the tribes in the South African region did not historically have same-sex unions), and thus nobody in SA would be able to be married to multiple people of the same sex.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Well what legal reasoning would prevent polygamy, since we have already redefined marriage.
                I am not a lawyer, but I have read quite a few of the US same-sex marriage decisions over the past couple of years (more out of curiosity about what kinds of reasoning were being used than anything else). The US legal reasoning that differentiates gay and polygamous people in court cases is the differing extent to which the two groups meet the various legal criteria for what are called 'suspect classes'. eg Black people in the US are a distinct group that has experienced historic discrimination, and the courts protect them accordingly, similarly with gay people. However 'polygamous' is not a recognized sexual orientation - people do not say "I am a polygamous person" in the same way they say "I am Black" or "I am gay" and as a result people who want to engage in polygamous relationships do not meet the legal criteria for identifying distinct groups that have been subjected to prejudice.

                As a result, the justice system allows the States much more leeway to discriminate against people who want to make the choice to engage in the option of polygamy than it gives leeway to discriminate against people who are gay and who seek the fundamental right to marry. Thus the legal reasoning applied in the various US courts on the same-sex marriage issue inherently lends itself to decisions that Black, or Jewish, or Gay people can marry, but doesn't inherently lend itself to allowing polygamy.


                From a practical point of view another difference that is worth noting is: Hundreds, or thousands, of laws about various things mention married couples as a possible state for people to be in - eg joint tax returns, divorce, hospital visitations, inheritance laws etc. In none of those hundreds or thousands of instances is the gender of the spouse ever relevant to those laws, the only thing that is relevant is that there is a spouse. All the civil and legal purposes that marriage served were being served equally well by two people of the same sex as two people of the opposite sex, so adding the criteria that two people must be of the opposite sex to get married was nothing but discrimination pure and simply - no legal purpose whatsoever was being served by that.

                However if you change the number of people in the relationship, quite a few of the laws that mention marriage have to be revisited and changed - things cannot always work the same way if some legal process is expecting to apply to one spouse and instead needs to somehow apply to multiple spouses. The process or law may become totally nonsensical when a number bigger than one is substituted in, and quite a number of laws may need to be substantially altered as a result.

                Thus allowing same-sex marriage is a legal change of literally one line in the law that defines who is allowed to get married. Whereas changing the number of people allowed in marriages has the potential to affect a lot of other laws, and is not remotely as simple a legal alteration. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it may well be necessary to bundle amendments to ~100 different laws into any bill for polygamous marriage.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #38
                  Thank you, Starlight. This isn't a topic I've looked into much myself, and that was very interesting.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Well what legal reasoning would prevent polygamy, since we have already redefined marriage.
                    I've realized my above answer to this got sidetracked on a couple of technicalities rather than focusing on the main reason. In the same-sex marriage cases the primary focus has always been on: Are there any good (non-religious) reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?

                    We're up to about 50 US court decisions on the subject now, and the rulings of the overwhelming majority of them have been that no, there is not a single good reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

                    If advocates of polygamy can show in court that there is not a single good reason to prohibit polygamy, then they could get it legalized.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      I've realized my above answer to this got sidetracked on a couple of technicalities rather than focusing on the main reason. In the same-sex marriage cases the primary focus has always been on: Are there any good (non-religious) reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?

                      We're up to about 50 US court decisions on the subject now, and the rulings of the overwhelming majority of them have been that no, there is not a single good reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

                      If advocates of polygamy can show in court that there is not a single good reason to prohibit polygamy, then they could get it legalized.
                      The argument is, as same-sex marriage have already defined marriage to be between two consenting adult who are in love, why not three consenting adults who are in love? or four, or five, etc.

                      In redefining marriage from being between one man and one woman, same-sex marriage advocates have, whether they like it or not, laid the necessary legal ground work for the definition to be extended further to allowing all forms of polygamy.

                      Boxing Pythagoras recently posted about two married couples he knows who co-habit in a Polyamorous relationship. it's an interesting read.
                      http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post162872
                      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                      1 Corinthians 16:13

                      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                      -Ben Witherington III

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                        The argument is, as same-sex marriage have already defined marriage to be between two consenting adult who are in love, why not three consenting adults who are in love? or four, or five, etc.
                        The criteria courts will use to judge polygamy remains the same: Can the States show that there is a single good reason to prohibit it? The outcomes of the various same-sex marriage trials will not affect this. If there are good reasons to ban polygamy, then the bans will stand up in court. If there are no good reasons to ban polygamy then why ban it?

                        In redefining marriage from being between one man and one woman, same-sex marriage advocates have, whether they like it or not, laid the necessary legal ground work for the definition to be extended further to allowing all forms of polygamy.
                        Are you implicitly admitting that there's not a single good reason to prohibit polygamy? And saying that the only thing stopping polygamy is a historical definition of marriage that people used to take for granted, but which doesn't really stand up to rational scrutiny? And so you're worried that now that same-sex marriage has led people to think harder about their understanding of marriage and subject it to rational scrutiny that they'll realize that there are no rational arguments for banning polygamy?

                        I think the problem is that you're jumping from "Off the top of my head I personally can't think of any reasons why polygamy should be banned" to "Nobody has any good reasons for banning polygamy because they don't exist" and hence you're assuming that polygamy was never banned for any good reasons aside from an arbitrary "historical definition of marriage" that the society of the time happened to have but which has since been subjected to scrutiny and questioned. In that case, shouldn't you be cheer-leading the fight for polygamous rights, since you apparently think that the historical bans on it were totally unwarranted and irrational?
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                          The argument is, as same-sex marriage have already defined marriage to be between two consenting adult who are in love, why not three consenting adults who are in love? or four, or five, etc.

                          In redefining marriage from being between one man and one woman, same-sex marriage advocates have, whether they like it or not, laid the necessary legal ground work for the definition to be extended further to allowing all forms of polygamy.

                          Boxing Pythagoras recently posted about two married couples he knows who co-habit in a Polyamorous relationship. it's an interesting read.
                          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post162872
                          Don't forget how Richard Carrier recently "came out" as "polyamorous".

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post

                            If advocates of polygamy can show in court that there is not a single good reason to prohibit polygamy, then they could get it legalized.
                            No, it will be on those who oppose polygamy to offer good reasons why polygamist should not have the same equal and Constitutional right to marry. And that is a high bar.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              When I was younger I used to eat just one big meal each day. Then I began eating 3 smaller meals and I have aged tremendously. Why was I not warned earlier?
                              It's all a government conspiracy. We should only eat one big meal of bacon divided up into three sessions, each day.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                it will be on those who oppose polygamy to offer good reasons why polygamist should not have the same equal and Constitutional right to marry. And that is a high bar.
                                So you think polygamy should be allowed? Because what I'm hearing you say is that you don't think there's any good reasons why it shouldn't be...?
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                251 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                338 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X