Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zubon
I suppose as a matter of American jurisprudence, at least, we could note that this is not true. There is no polygamist tradition in the United States, as even Utah gave that up before entering. As such, a traditionalist or original interpretation approach to the Constitution will not support a right to practice polygamy. This would be similar to Scalia's dissent on the question of whether states can outlaw homosexualy sodomy: the framers did not have that in mind when they wrote the Constitution. While that is a legal question rather than a philosophical one, it is worth noting for the Americans that we have a pretty clear tradition of monogamous marriage.
If we want to go back millenia, we can find support for polygamous and homosexual marriages, but we are not going to find that in the history of the United States of America. Whether or not "tradition" is a good argument, (some) traditionalists are not being hypocritical. Just making sure we do not exceed our grasp with our arguments.  |
Good point. The definition of tradition depends on how you define tradition. I was looking at it more from a biblical perspective since i think marriage is very often framed by religious terms.
Irate: i see no reason to draw distinctions between the genders of those involved in polygamy, although by definition there would have to be a little bit of homosexual marriage going on.
Anyways, we don't need excuses to be promiscuous anymore, nor do we need to be married to justify our sexual activity. Since marriage in general isn't always the result of the desires of two functional, well-adjusted adults i don't see why polygamy not always being the result of the desires of two functional, well-adjusted adults should have any bearing on a polygamy specific discussion.
You could say a polygamous marriage is doomed to fail, but most normal marriages are doomed to fail too.
It could also be said that marriage is useless, polygamy or not(a camp which i tend to be a part of), but that does little to further a discussion on the validity of one form of marriage over another.
At this point i don't understand why it isn't legal. Any legal complications could be ironed out with a little time and effort and most of the criticism levelled at polygamy could also be levelled at marriage in general. As a family unit, it probably makes more sense to have more adults involved. Imagine our economy if we all lived in three parent housholds. Would it be more or less financially stable? I'm starting to think that the nuclear family isn't the most efficient family unit.