thegreekdog wrote:First off player, thank you for posting like an adult in response to my post.
Thank you for the same.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Your point about the constitution being framed by society is only partially correct. People certain are blinded by thier own views. However, what people knew then and what we know now is just plain different.
This is another issue - should the Constitution be interpreted by the views of society (in the form of the Supreme Court)? I won't get into that because it's not the issue of this thread, per se. But, I agree, the knowledge is different now than it was then. Does it still excuse the racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance of our forefathers? If, 100 years from know, our descendants have different knowledge, would they excuse our racism, homophobia, or religious intolerance?
Yes, it is getting into a tangent, so I won't answer fully. I will say that "Excuse" is not the right word. The thing is that we cannot judge
people of the past by today's standards. People only know what they know. In the words of Maya D' Angelo "when we knew better, we did better".
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Polygamy, on the other hand, is still differant. Now, personally, if it involves consenting ADULTS, and I would even say that the age of consent might be older for non-traditional marriages, but if everyone agrees and they have the ability to provide well for every child, etc. then maybe. Its not that differant from the guy who sleeps with 15 women, except that he perhaps has more legal responsibility. The problem is that when Polygamy is really practiced, that only happened at first. Then it becomes "we don't have enough adult women, let's take girls" , etc.
I'm not trying to throw stones here, but you are making arguments against polygamy based upon evidence that could be applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
(1) Consenting adults problem - If all marriages need to be between consenting adults, the problem is solved. A 28 year old man cannot marry a 12 year old girl because it's not between consenting adults. Assuming polygamy were legal, a 28 year old man could not marry two 12 year old girls because it's not between consenting adults. Legalizing polygamy does not change the laws regarding consenting adults.
This is true, but underage marriage/sex is not associated with homosexuality in the same way that it is with polygamy. There are specific reasons it is associated with polygamy, specifically a limit to the number of adult women.
(note-- yes, there are homosexual child predators, but they represent a far smaller percentage of the population than heterosexual predators and are not associated with adult homosexuality any more than adult heterosexuality is)
thegreekdog wrote:(2) Providing well for every child - We have no law saying that people cannot have children or be married if they do or do not have a certain income. How is it different if two heterosexuals marry and have 3 children they cannot provide for? How is it different if two homosexuals mary and have 3 children they cannot provide for?
This is true, to a point. I mentioned it primarily as a reason that the state/people
might have reason to see polygamy differantly. Also, "lots of kids" tends to be associated with modern polygamist sects.
