writing group and meandering thoughts.

[kippurbird]

So, the guy who wrote that horribly cliche piece of drivel turned out to be rather nice about it (and kinda hot >.> ) and wasn't at all like Miss Formulaic. He seemed to be very interested in our comments and didn't mind that I was horribly brutal. He asked questions about how to make it better and was generally everything a reviewer could want in a person. I look forward to his next installment with high hopes.

Now, on a completely random matter as I wait for the paint to dry on my birthday present for my brother (we exchange presents on our birthdays, don't ask, we just do). I think Polygamy should be made legal.

Why? You may ask. My response: Why not? How is it wrong to be married to more than one person. Where does it say that it's a morally wrong thing to do? If all parties that are involved are consenting adults, they why shouldn't they get married in any which way they please? No one is getting hurt by such a marriage. It's just a different way of doing so. In fact I think the fact that it is illegal is unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the United States. It does, after all, state that we are allowed religious freedom and there are religions that allow for polygamy. So, theoretically those who practice those religions should be allowed to practice that practice. >.> Also, there is the separation of church and state. This I think is important, because in the Protestant tradition (On which this country was founded in )polygamy is a Bad Thing (I don't know why as I'm not a Protestant nor a Christian) and so they have imposed their religious ideal upon the rest of the country. If the US wanted to fully espouse that they are a land of true religious freedom and that there is a true separation between church and state then polygamy should be legalized.

After all beyond religion there isn't a good reason not to. I have yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't allow it. It just isn't allowed.

Perhaps I should start a petition to get it on a ballot or something. =D

Comments

[b2wm.livejournal.com]

Now, given all else being equal - the parties involved are all cool with polygamy, no complaints religious/sexism/OTP!13!-wise, - the one major biological reason I could see the government wanting to nix polygamy has to do with paternity questions. More of a polyandry thing than polygyny, of course, but there's a reason that the former's comparatively rare, I suppose. 'Sides, that's what DNA testing's for.

The other traditional knotty issue with polygamy - economics - is also a little easier to deal with these days, I guess, right up until you have to list spouse's income on the tax sheet...

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

DNA testing is a wonderful thing.

As for taxes, that's why you have room for multiple people. =D

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

the one major biological reason I could see the government wanting to nix polygamy has to do with paternity questions

Because clearly only the biological father can love a child. No one ever raises a child who's not related by blood to them, and if they do, they certainly don't raise them in a loving home. And, of course, a child's best interests are ALWAYS served by their blood-relatives, and NEVER by an adopted parent or stepparent. </sarcasm>

[b2wm.livejournal.com]

Know what you mean. But unintentional incest FTW.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, avoidance of close-relative breeding is a legitimate concern. But definite knowledge of paternity isn't required. Just don't have sex with someone who has a chance of being a close relative.

(And actually, it's questionable whether it's a legitimate *governmental* interest at all given that most people don't argue that the government has a legitimtae interest in forbidding, say, women over the age of 35 from having children or forcing women to take their vitamins in case they become pregnant, or forbidding people with similar family histories of defects from reproducing, and yet those are also strong risk factors for birth defects)