Same Sex Marriage Requires Approval of Polygamy

58 posts / 0 new

Two decades ago — and for all recorded history, for that matter — "marriage" was defined as a relationship between people of opposite gender. (Certainly, many societies permitted (or even glorified) same-sex relationships, but they didn't seek to define them as "marriage." That's entirely modern.)

Today, the desire is to define "marriage" as a relationship between two people:

Marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond... [Psychology Today]

So, what's the big deal? If two people love each other, shouldn't they be allowed the same rights, privileges and responsibilities, no matter their genders? [link]

Marriage is a ritual or ceremony which legally binds two people together. Marriage can be achieved through judicial means of applying for a license, as well as religiously through a clerics consent to espouse. After marriage, two people are joined together in a legal, social and often religious contract... [link]

But, wait, what happened to polygamy? In the US, polygamy was always believed to be a form of marriage (nobody ever said it "wasn't marriage"), but just one which wasn't legally recognized, nor encouraged. Oddly, now we are claiming, under the pretended new definition, that polygamy isn't even a form of marriage.

If we really believed this to be the definition of 'marriage', we could not say that Mohammad had multiple wives. Those who purport to accept the new definition of marriage must say that Mohammad had one wife (again, marriage is a relationship between two people) and simply slept with the other women. (Now try saying this in Saudi Arabia!)

Obviously, nobody speaks this way about polygamy — which means that everyone — including promoters of same-sex marriage — actually believe that the term "marriage" includes polygamy. They just refuse to grant polygamists those marriages same legal standing they want for same-sex couples.

In contrast, a Christian (including myself) might say that marriage is a bond between people of opposite sex (as all people in history have believed), and also argue God'sideal for marriage was one man, one woman, as long as both live. This doesn't mean that I won't call two divorced people "married." Failing to be an ideal or perfect X doesn't mean you're not X at all. A polygamous marriage (or a third marriage) is still a marriage. A flawed human being is still a human being.

One solution to this is to fall back to admitting other definitions of marriage (and scrapping their current one), but only wanting the two-person part to be legal. But how is that defended? The Christian defends the two-person part by citing Jesus — who also, annoying, defined them as being of opposite gender. So the same-sex marriage advocate can't use that, nor the Jewish (nor Muslim, nor Hindu) understanding of marriage.

On what grounds, then, to exclude Muslims, and other polygamists? On the grounds of "love"? What if one man truly loves two women, or at least claims he does? (Or all three love each other?) How do you prove such a thing can't happen?

Or do we fall back on the "it's not good for society" argument? Based on what research? Same-sex marriage activists have spent a long time explaining that marriage is about individual needs, not society — although I suppose one can always do an about-face.

I can see no rational basis for both throwing out the all-of-history definition of marriage as being about joining two different sexes, while simultaneously all forms of polygamy from fitting the definition of marriage, much less legal sanction.

Of course we can always fall back on unevaluated hypocrisy and contradiction. That's sustainable, at least for a while.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Comments

If you know law instead of bs Rightwing propaganda, you would understand that what is available to heterosexual couples is available to homosexual couples and nothing more, or less. That is what equal protection means. It does not mean that any religion is able to posit a belief that goes beyond what is generally available to citizens, so polygamy was outlawed for everyone, including Mormons. That is how it works.

Unless you buy into the Santorum nonsense that is. Then you get all hot and bothered about heterosexuality as if you had the franchise and gay and lesbian people were not allowed to love, bond and commit themselves to one another in marriage. Do you realize that marriage was banned for inter-racial couples, and how did that change do anything to what marriage is supposed to be? There is no difference here except in the minds of those who think God loves heterosexual fucking and hates anything else.

The logic for this heterosexism fails, and those who have tried to posit such dogma fall back on some really weird justifications. My favorite is that man and women complete the Imago Dei while gay and lesbians do not. This makes a holy sacrament out of heterosexual intercourse, and what happens to celibacy?

I am sorry for your closed and dogma filled mind, but more so for your hardness of heart and willingness to make others suffer for your stupidity. Once again, you embarass yourself and prove to be a creep in public. If you cannot do better, go away.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

At least three supreme Court justices saw polygamy as entirely relevant to this question in the dissent to Romer_v._Evans in 1996.

"Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had ruled that a law criminalizing homosexual sex was constitutional.[1]"

'Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Scalia wrote:...

...Justice Scalia also asked how the holding of the majority could be reconciled with Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):
"remains to be explained how §501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Amendment 2 is an "impermissible targeting" of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a "legitimate concern of government," and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?"'

The case was about "protected class" not specificly about gay marriage but I think it strikes to the heart of this culture war issue, and it also illustrates that this question is far from setteled.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote Calperson:

Two decades ago — and for all recorded history, for that matter — "marriage" was defined as a relationship between people of opposite gender.

For all recorded history, continuing today among probably half the world's population, "marriage" is defined as a relationship between two men regarding chattel.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Why must we constantly use the ignorant past as a justification for continuing the same? We should be free to make the present whatever works for human beings and not be chained to our history of bigotry and ignorance. That goes for religion, politics and anything else.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

The point is that nothing about including gay and lesbian citizens in the equal right to two partner marriage redefines "marriage" in civil terms. Polygamy would. The theological musing of the Supremes aside, the issue under discussion is only the extension of two party marriage to people of the same gender in the light of sound science and social realism. The reasons advanced in the past to deny gay and lesbian citizens this right have been demonstrated to be false in the same way that the reasons women's rights were curtailed and race was an established barrier only to be proved empty of all truth.

Anyone wishing to refer to the history of marriage needs to do some study and will be shocked to find what was established law in patriarchy. Nobody wants to go back there. And, Jesus' witness in his own time was against a lot of beliefs about marriage where widows and orphans, and eunuchs were excluded from the kinship system of welfare and sanctions. His "family values" were about human beings, not kinship. I think the argument against polygamy and open marriage is practicality. Trying to keep moral relationships with more than two people expands the difficulty exponentially. Where marriage was a formal relationship of contract between breadwinners and homemakers, intimacy and love might need to be found elsewhere. Many cultures accept mistresses and lovers as normal for these reasons.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:The point is that nothing about including gay and lesbian citizens in the equal right to two partner marriage redefines "marriage" in civil terms. Polygamy would. The theological musing of the Supremes aside, the issue under discussion is only the extension of two party marriage to people of the same gender in the light of sound science and social realism. [...]I think the argument against polygamy and open marriage is practicality. Trying to keep moral relationships with more than two people expands the difficulty exponentially.[...]

I reject your contention that bringing homosexual couples into the civil definition of marriage doesn't redefine the institution, two partner or not. There is no "theological musing" in post #3. The question posed is: If you carve out a "protected class" for LGBT couples how do you not do the same for poligamists?

Has the group "poligamists" not been persecuted in this country since at least 1850, admittedly not with the same level of aversion as that directed at homosexuals?

The path to inclusion is the same for both groups. Have a liberal court carve out a "protected class", decriminalize whatever behavior to which society objects, then modify that social convention, the will of the people be damned.

Think it's not already happening? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-polygamy-20110731,0,...

"Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices."

Here is what Turley himself says: http://jonathanturley.org/latest-column/

"Ultimately, the question is whether polygamy is allowed under the privacy principles articulated in Lawrence. The court did not state exclusions for unpopular relationships. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter” but rather “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.”

The Browns are quite similar. They want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith."

I find it particularly interesting that you use practicality and morals as qualifiers against poligamy. Tell that to the more than 50 cultures that practise poligamy, most under Sharia law but some under the auspices of civil government.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

The "slipper slope" argument? Bite me Calperson. Sorry, I shouldn't get personal so... empirical evidence shows that your conservative argument is just so much hokum.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

We evolve with the times. Someday polygamy will be more accepted and legalized in some form or another. For right now let's stick to the legal union of "two" people. One step at a time.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Calperson:... for all recorded history, for that matter — "marriage" was defined as a relationship between people of opposite gender.

That's a false statement. Brothers, sisters, females were all able to marry in the middle ages - although it was rare.

Quote Calperson: ...On what grounds, then, to exclude Muslims, and other polygamists? ...

...I can see no rational basis for both throwing out the all-of-history definition of marriage as being about joining two different sexes, while simultaneously all forms of polygamy from fitting the definition of marriage, much less legal sanction.

Perhaps I got too hungry with the ax, but I don't think I understand your point. Your saying that Polygamy should be illegal because it is is not 'all-of-history' and/or mentioned in the bible? But those reasons are foolish - slavery was a part of history, and the Bible? You want to kill and enslave unbelievers and kill people who work on the "Sabbath" and believe the earth is flat? In any case, you can't use the Bible to justify a law. Otherwise, a Muslim could use his Bible to justify polygamy.

I use to think this might be a valid reason to outlaw same sex marriages. But then, why put the burden of outlawing Polygamy on homosexuals? And we disagree on everything anyway - what would the purpose of arguing this point?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The big problem with the term "marriage" is all of the laws with special benefits to a "spouse."

I don't know how polygamy would work legally in the 21st Century.

I suppose one man and two women could enter into a "partnership" provided that all terms are clear and understood, including terms allowing for additional partners and terms providing for "dissolution/divorce."

It's difficult enough to go about maintaining a "general partnership" between two people who are married, Combined liability if one of them gets in an accident, or if one runs into a lot of debt. How to deal with support and property settlement in a divorce. Who in their right mind would want to do this with three or more parties involved?

And what happens when children are involved? Do the husband and wife #2 get to argue for custody of the children of wife #1?

If the husband dies are the two surviving wives considered to be remained married to each other?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Why must we constantly use the ignorant past as a justification for continuing the same? We should be free to make the present whatever works for human beings and not be chained to our history of bigotry and ignorance. That goes for religion, politics and anything else.

I'm a little torn on the issue. I do not like denying people rights based on sexual orientation. I also don't like judges who overturn the will of the people simply because they feel like it.

If two men or two women can be in love, then why can't three people be in love? If three people are in love then why should they have to choose who to marry? Why should one be forced out? Where exactly do we draw the line?

To me polygamy means one thing. It's has nothing to do with "love." Once a man finds a woman that he wants to marry, he should stop looking for "love." Polygamy is all about sex. It's about a man who wants to screw mulitple women and sucker his wife into going along with it.

If the husband is humping other chicks shouldn't he at least extend the same courtesy to his "wives"? Shouldn't he be letting them get some on the side?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

I always thought of polygamy as a power thing. As usual it's about the power of the "man". You don't see one woman with several husbands in polygamy. It's pretty much all about greed. "I want that one, oh, and that one too, and yes that one looks good too!" There are so many lovely ladies to choose from, I want them all! Mine, mine, mine, don't even think about taking one of them away from me!

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

First of all, the judges in California were interpreting the California constitution, not arbitrarily ignoring the will of the people. Secondly, there is no reason a person can't love two people simultaneously. However, there are complications that are obvious to anyone who cares to really think about the issue. For instance, if one of my wives has a child and the other ones don't, but I divorce the one with child, are the rest of my wives on the hook for child support too, or is that only for me as a genetic donor?

Frankly, I don't care if multiple people marry as long as there are legal and social mechanisms to deal with the result. What I desire most is fairness and equality for all citizens, not, as we have now, a narrow, abrahamic tradition defining the law.

Gay people deserve to fullfill their natural human desire to find someone to PAIR bond with. And, society needs to recognize that as an inherent human desire, and not a slap upon their subjective god's face. Too much of our needs as humans must be filtered through the bigotries and religions of others, who should have no say in whom anybody else chooses to commit themselves

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I always thought of polygamy as a power thing. As usual it's about the power of the "man". You don't see one woman with several husbands in polygamy. It's pretty much all about greed. "I want that one, oh, and that one too, and yes that one looks good too!" There are so many lovely ladies to choose from, I want them all! Mine, mine, mine, don't even think about taking one of them away from me!

Possibly in some cases. But I still think it is more base than that. I am convinced that it is all about horny men wanting a free pass from their wives to bang other women. Do you think these men should let their "wives" get a little on the side?

If a man has three "wives" and they find out that he is humping a fourth chick, is he cheating or simply courting another possible wife?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I always thought of polygamy as a power thing. As usual it's about the power of the "man". You don't see one woman with several husbands in polygamy. It's pretty much all about greed. "I want that one, oh, and that one too, and yes that one looks good too!" There are so many lovely ladies to choose from, I want them all! Mine, mine, mine, don't even think about taking one of them away from me!

Possibly in some cases. But I still think it is more base than that. I am convinced that it is all about horny men wanting a free pass from their wives to bang other women. Do you think these men should let their "wives" get a little on the side?

If a man has three "wives" and they find out that he is humping a fourth chick, is he cheating or simply courting another possible wife?

Absolutely. Most of the guys I know would love to have multiple wives if it were the status quo. At the same time they would not allow that to go both ways because most men see their women as their property. That doesn't mean that women wouldn't like the opportunity to have multiple husbands if it were the status quo. I don't know if they would feel the same about the "property" though. I don't know, I'm kind of talking out my ass here.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Here is a pretty good link to the subject: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200806...

"A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers share a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men share a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare?"

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I always thought of polygamy as a power thing. As usual it's about the power of the "man". You don't see one woman with several husbands in polygamy. It's pretty much all about greed. "I want that one, oh, and that one too, and yes that one looks good too!" There are so many lovely ladies to choose from, I want them all! Mine, mine, mine, don't even think about taking one of them away from me!

Possibly in some cases. But I still think it is more base than that. I am convinced that it is all about horny men wanting a free pass from their wives to bang other women. Do you think these men should let their "wives" get a little on the side?

If a man has three "wives" and they find out that he is humping a fourth chick, is he cheating or simply courting another possible wife?

Absolutely. Most of the guys I know would love to have multiple wives if it were the status quo. At the same time they would not allow that to go both ways because most men see their women as their property. That doesn't mean that women wouldn't like the opportunity to have multiple husbands if it were the status quo. I don't know if they would feel the same about the "property" though. I don't know, I'm kind of talking out my ass here.

I don't think you are talking out of your ass. My common sense tells me that you pretty much nailed it.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

You are talking about chattel, not equal partners in marriage. I think most patriarchal macho insecurity aholes dream of polygamy, but if they had to come home to women who were their equals and who bonded with each other in the harem, they would be so out of their league that they would run and hide.

Monogamy is about all that any real man can handle, if he is married to a real woman. Having a stable of groupie chicks to bang is an adolescent fantasy far beyond their real ability to handle.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Same sex marriage is between two people only, both of whom have equality, with equal benefits and equal responsibilities. Polygamy entails one man with one legal wife, while the extra women are merely concubines in his harem, and have no legal rights whatsoever. There is no equality within such an arrangement. There are many studies revealing that polygamy is bad for all society. Check the Internet! In 2011, Chief Justice Robert Bauman of British Columbia Supreme Court heard a challenge from polygamists that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms meant they could freely practise polygamy. Judge Bauman listened to 14 groups making presentations over a 4 month period, both pro and con polygamy. On 23 November 2011 he brought down his decision that polygamy harmed ALL society in that it contravened the equality rights of women and harmed their children psychologically and financially. As well, polygamy disadvantaged younger, poorer men who would be in competition for a wife and family of their own. (Nature hasn't even made two women for every one man, so men who have multiple wives are robbing their brothers). He ruled that polygamy is an anti-social act that harms ALL society, and that Canadian law banning polygamy should stand. All this is available on the Internet, together with the Briefs presented by the 14 groups. Same sex marriage is so new it offends many, but it is still between two equals. Polygamy comes from the dark ages when women had no rights and were considered chattels. It has no place whatsoever in any society that considers women have equality with men. (Which obviously does not include those backward Third World countries where women are treated as third-class citizens.) The year is 2012 AD, not 2012 BC!

jenny wren's picture
jenny wren
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 6:35 am

The only positive comment I ever read on polygamy was in the Wild West on the lonely frontier where one chattel cook, bottle washer, breeder and mom often died young from all that work and loneliness. Some women found a sisterhood and shared the load. The man rarely had any mutuality or sense of partnership whether it was one or several. Still, that is a great post and a smackdown to the stupid Calperson post.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Monogamy is about all that any real man can handle, if he is married to a real woman. Having a stable of groupie chicks to bang is an adolescent fantasy far beyond their real ability to handle.

Which is exactly what my wife keeps telling me.

DAMMIT!!!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote jenny wren:

It has no place whatsoever in any society that considers women have equality with men.

Excellent post jenny, and i totally agree with the "gist" of your message. You are indeed right, and very succiently lay out many of the reasons why society DOES have the right to define itself and how it wants to operate.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Hooray for jenny! But Calperson, did you understand that she did not justify discrimination against marriage equality? How a society wants to operate has to be just, not just 'traditional.' Racial equality made a lot of people uncomfortable. So does the idea that women are equal to men. The fact that gay and lesbian marriage upsets traditionalists does not have any standing in any court. It just indicates that prejudice is hard to erase and learning to get over it is what "liberty and justice for all" requires.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

That is what I was trying to explain in the original post of this thread. If a group of consenting adults want to all marry together then is not their "liberty and justice" threatened by society not allowing them to marry?

What about a brother and a sister? What if they love each and want to get married? Why does society not allow them to? Is it because of hate? Is it because of bigotry? Is it because of prejudice that we have not "erased" yet? Is it just because of old "traditions"?

Jenny did a good job of narating this particular judges reasoning, and how an "anti-social act harms ALL of society".

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
That is what I was trying to explain in the original post of this thread. If a group of consenting adults want to all marry together then is not their "liberty and justice" threatened by society not allowing them to marry?
I think it probably is. That, of course, doesn't account for the hazards of in-breeding and just the good old "ick" factor.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything and everything. If one wishes to argue where lines should be drawn (such as not allowing a 5-year-old or a blind person to drive), fine. That's necessary. But the slippery slope argument is just plain foolish.

Sexual orientation is not chosen, and same-sex marriage poses no threat. I've seen no argument against allowing same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in bigotry or religious-based nonsense, two things that are interrelated to be sure.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am
Quote Garrett78:

The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything and everything.

It is not even a slippery slope, it is the EXACT SAME argument. How is the brother and sister who want to get married different from the two gays who want to get married? how?

By not allowing consenting polygamists to get married and by not allowing brothers and sisters to get married, leftists are showing that their argument is not about human rights at all, or about the freedom of consenting adults wanting to marry.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
By not allowing consenting polygamists to get married and by not allowing brothers and sisters to get married, leftists are showing that their argument is not about human rights at all, or about the freedom of consenting adults wanting to marry.
Is it lefties who are screaming about polygamy or incest? I thought these laws were accepted by pretty much everybody. The only people who politicize them seem to be the rightists.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Only in your warped mind is it the exact same argument. Is arguing that a blind person or a baby should be allowed to drive a car the "exact same" argument as saying you or I (assuming you're neither blind or a baby, in the literal sense) should be allowed to drive a car? Of course not.

Unlike homosexuality and heterosexuality, incest and polygamy are not sexual orientations. Additionally, they pose extreme health risks. Society has drawn lines. Some arbitrary (e.g. national borders, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage). Some not (e.g. incest). Fortunately, some arbitrary lines have been erased over time. Anyway, the slippery slope argument is, in fact, what you're applying whether you realize it or not. And it's foolish. But I suspect you knew that already. If not, I feel even more sorry for you than I did before.

Again, the opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and religious-based nonsense, both of which are sometimes masked by these ridiculously desperate attempts to argue same-sex relationships are the same as incest, polygamy or beastiality.

Calperson, your straw men aren't even entertaining.

I'm done here.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am
Quote Garrett78:

Additionally, they pose extreme health risks. Society has drawn lines.

I agree, and so does Art above. It is obvious that society has a role in "drawing the lines" defining what marriage is.

The problem is that leftists encase their argument in the "rights" of consenting adults and then out of the other side of their mouth deny those same rights to other subsections of consenting adults.

Some animals really are more equal than others.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Calperson, you are making a distinction that only exists in your head. When people discuss "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" they intentionally ignore the fact that sexuality is a spectrum that runs from one extreme to the other and that there is no evidence to suggest that any position along that spectrum that one happens to fall into is any more important or appropriate than any other. Just by way of example I remember some very good friends of my parents when I was a boy. My parents always said that the wife wore the "pants" in the family, and it was true - she was clearly the more masculine of the two. Nevertheless they were heterosexual and had raised two boys. Their marriage was not "traditional" but because they were male and female no one objected that they had a role-reversed marriage.

This bogus argument that conservatives put forward about preserving the "traditional" meaning of marriage is just an excuse to try and preserve a privileged position unto themselves. Just because gay men and women have been the targets of religious persecution and exemption does not mean that gay marriages have not been traditionally entered into by homosexual couples, it only means that they have been traditionally discriminated against by the church and state and their relationships existed as stand alone relationships. To state that marriage has only before been between a man and a woman is really a lie. The truth is that only the rights and respect due to gay couples has not existed before. It's well past time that bigots and religious zealots stopped interfering with the natural progression toward greater inclusion so that those of us who have suffered so mightily from the undeserved and entrenched hatefulness they have perpetuated on us can have some peace in our lives.

So if you conservative troglodytes want to have a discussion about polygamy then that is a debate that people of good faith can have but to equate the inclusion of gay people in state sanctioned marriage with sanctioning polygamy is no more fair than equating heterosexual marriage with the sanctioning of polygamy. Its offensive!

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

I am not even considering this thread from a sexual point of view, purely from a human rights point of view. Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are the same in this regard. The "human rights" angle is the core line of reasoning that gay marriage proponents have been pushing, and it is one that no doubt makes a lot of sense. All of us are attracted to allowing freedom of consenting adults without interference from the State.

I am just raising the question that while these supporters of gay marriage tout the liberty of consenting adults forming a bond, they then turn around and deny these SAME rights to other consenting humans.

How is it a "human right" if certain classes of people are exempt? On what basis do you disqualify the brother and sister or the polygamous group?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

If calperson can't come up with a good reason to ban incest, then it's his own fault. Why blame homosexuals for calperson's intellectual insufficiency?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

If calperson can't come up with a good reason to ban incest, then it's his own fault. Why blame homosexuals for calperson's intellectual insufficiency?

Of course there is a good reason, it is not in the interest of society as a whole!

I'm totally in agreement with what ART said when he objected to "the hazards of in-breeding and just the good old "ick" factor."

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Keep in mind that polygamy is not three people (or more) married. It is one person (the man) marrying two people simultaneously. The two wives are not married to each other. The circumstances where 3 people would want to get married are pretty rare. Because of the possibility of coercion, it is probably not a good idea. The idea that both parties in marriage would agree to adding another seems far fetched. The modern idea of marriage has exclusivity in it. It does not have to have gender. Because of this, it is flawed reasoning to equate homosexual marriage with polygamy. Not considering this, is treating women like cattle in a sense - a possession of man, rather than a partner. Making this conflation is essentially sexist in the worst way.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

On the brother/sister thing (or brother/brother for that matter) the legal reasons for marriage is to form a family, legally joining two estates. In the case of siblings, they are already family and this is not necessary. Marriage would be legally superfluous. (And icky.)

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Calperson:On what basis do you disqualify the brother and sister or the polygamous group?

Ignorning the multitude of answers to your moronic question doesn't mean those answers don't exist. You even quoted a portion of my post that gave an answer, and then went right back to equating homosexual relationships with polygamous and incenstuous relationships. Why? Are you genuinely dense, or is there something else going on?

What do you and the other trolls gain from posting on this site? Is it all about causing a diversion? I have a hard time accepting the notion that certain posters are paid by right wing groups to post here, but some of you are so insanely stupid that I find it equally difficult to accept the idea that you're actually interested in constructive discussion. So, what's your purpose?

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am
Quote Calperson:
Quote Dr. Econ:

If calperson can't come up with a good reason to ban incest, then it's his own fault. Why blame homosexuals for calperson's intellectual insufficiency?

Of course there is a good reason, it is not in the interest of society as a whole!

I'm totally in agreement with what ART said when he objected to "the hazards of in-breeding and just the good old "ick" factor."

Every single arguement we have shot down, time and time again and you still maintain this charade? Are you going to make sterile couples not able to marry? Here's one - is the number of married couples who don't have children larger than the number of homosexuals wanting to marry? And what about homosexuals adopting unwanted babies? That is not in the interest of society.

Once again - there is not a single arguement you can come up with to make your point.

Now, as to Art's point - just think about it for a minute. Simply visit your nearest International House of Pancakes or Denny's and then imagine what the couples do and what they do and tell me it is not 'icky'.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Garrett78:

What do you and the other trolls gain from posting on this site? Is it all about causing a diversion? I have a hard time accepting the notion that certain posters are paid by right wing groups to post here, but some of you are so insanely stupid that I find it equally difficult to accept the idea that you're actually interested in constructive discussion. So, what's your purpose?

Yes. Answer this one. And answer it like you are in public, sitting directly across from a real human being. Not like no one will ever find you, lurking behind a computer in your home.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I'm honestly trying to discover if the advocation for gay marriage is truly based around "human rights" and the "freedom" of consenting adults to marry.

When it comes to polygamous unions and brother/sister unions, we seem to unite in common agreement.

That the fundamental "right" of consenting adults to marry, is in fact not inherent to all people, but shaped by society, and that the community itself has the right to define what, and where the lines shall be drawn.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Our society, not being subject to "established religion" or the prejudice of majorities, is about equality of citizenship and the requirement of substantial reason to deny any person or group anything that is common to the rest. The struggle to overcome homophobia has established that all the theories advanced to justify any denial of equality are either religious dogma or baseless prejudice. In the process, the evidence justifying the human basis for gay and lesbian bonding in committed relationships of equal human importance and quality to heterosexual marriage has also become clear.

We have long recognized that heterosexual marriage is not based in procreative ability and that we do not consider childless marriages or the marriages of seniors belong child bearing age as deficient or lesser in importance and respect. The ban against heterosexual polygamy has also been established, so nothing about gay or lesbian marriage extends the common rights to marry beyond two committed partners. It is also clear that no secondary status or substitionary language gives the rights embedded in legal language about marriage. "Civil Unions" fail for both legal equality and the sense of cultural second class status.

In short, what is available to heterosexual couples legally and culturally must also be available to gay and lesbian couples because anything less fails the equal rights and protection we revere as a democratic society. This is what the Constitutional argument asserts. I would add that I have known a number of gay and lesbian couples whose marriages make most heterosexual marriages look far less worthy. Twenty years ago the argument against gay marriage was that homosexual people were not able to sustain long term committed relationships. Not only have these marriages lasted, they have done so without the legal and cultural support given their 'straight' fellow citizens. I think the case is beyond dispute. I wish the homophobes were able to celebrate the fact that marriage is far more central to human nature for a lot more people than they had presumed.

I also hope that we can all avoid making single people lesser in our eyes simply because many are "called" to marry. Those who make marriage a sacred duty or see heterosexual intercourse in terms of the reuniting of the Divine Imago do not understand what is sacred. We need to hold love in the highest regard, but we also need to appreciate that celibacy and singleness are what others are called to.

I think we could also learn a lot about sex and intimacy which would dispell the illusions of promiscuity and porn. Even the "hookup" ought to be a matter of interpersonal respect rather than "scoring."

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

In short, what is available to heterosexual couples legally and culturally must also be available to gay and lesbian couples because anything less fails the equal rights and protection we revere as a democratic society. This is what the Constitutional argument asserts.

I'd agree the constitution allows that interpretation.

Given that you are of sound mind and of firm conviction I would assume you believe it is un constitutional to forbid a brother and sister or two first cousins marrying. If not, why not?

I am also curious of where your magical number of "two" people comes from? Is this number specifically designated in the constitution? If "two" consenting adults are allowed to marry, what exactly is it that forbids "three"?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

The ban on close relatives marrying is based in the possibility of procreation. It might be interesting to see if late stage marriages of close kin could be allowed where there is no chance of a genetic problem. Again, what prevents more than two is the fact that what is defined as marriage in America has been two people, not polygamy. The reasons behind that policy could be tested, but not because of anything about gay or lesbian marriage equality. It would be totally about whether the limitation to two people makes sense. That takes us back to the post jenny contributed and the legal thinking she quoted.

I think there are strong practical arguments for monogamy, but there could be exceptions that would merit a rethinking of the ban. The point here is that there is nothing in the case for marriage equality that raises such questions or requires them to be considered. It is about having the same rights that presently are recognized for heterosexual couples. Period.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

The ban on close relatives marrying is based ......

....what prevents more than two is the fact that what is defined as marriage in America ...

Here, you seem to be in favor of the State injecting itself into how marriage is DEFINED. If the government decides that certain genetic questions are satisfied then you can have your constitutional rights?

You can't be for constitutional rights for some people and not for others.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
Quote Calperson:

Given that you are of sound mind and of firm conviction I would assume you believe it is un constitutional to forbid a brother and sister or two first cousins marrying. If not, why not?

I am also curious of where your magical number of "two" people comes from? Is this number specifically designated in the constitution? If "two" consenting adults are allowed to marry, what exactly is it that forbids "three"?

and..

Quote DRC:

The ban on close relatives marrying is based in the possibility of procreation. It might be interesting to see if late stage marriages of close kin could be allowed where there is no chance of a genetic problem. Again, what prevents more than two is the fact that what is defined as marriage in America has been two people, not polygamy. The reasons behind that policy could be tested, but not because of anything about gay or lesbian marriage equality. It would be totally about whether the limitation to two people makes sense. That takes us back to the post jenny contributed and the legal thinking she quoted.

I think there are strong practical arguments for monogamy, but there could be exceptions that would merit a rethinking of the ban. The point here is that there is nothing in the case for marriage equality that raises such questions or requires them to be considered. It is about having the same rights that presently are recognized for heterosexual couples. Period.

Damn it. Didn't I just answer this? Family members do not need to marry because they are already family. They have the same legal rights with regards to estates, visitation rights, etc. There is no law that I know of stopping them from procreating. Marriage is a legal contract making two people who are not family into a legal family. That's why they (usually) take the same last name. What purpose does it serve for siblings to marry? They already have the legal rights that marriage grants.

Three people do not consent to get married. One person takes a second spouse, breaking the original contract of the first marriage. The two wives (or, much more rarely, husbands) are not 'married' to each other. They have to desolve the first contract to make a new one with someone else. It is a question of power and sexism.

Because marriage is a legal contract, the above arguments about same sex couples are correct - people may enter into a contract with whomever they choose, as long as both parties agree. Whether they are opposite sexes or the same is not for the government to decide. It is only the two parties involved.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote planetxan:

What purpose does it serve for siblings to marry? They already have the legal rights that marriage grants.

They don't actually, I have filed many tax returns as a single man and have filed 10 more as a married man. I can tell you that both State and Federal agencies offer a wide range of "shared income benefits" for the married couple.

My own sister has never been once asked about in my tax returns. The fact that I even have a sister does not matter one bit to the IRS.

I would like to ask you straight up plantxan, do you believe in the constitutional right of EVERYONE to get married, including first cousins, or do you believe the State has some role to play in defining and shaping marriage?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
Quote planetxan:

Three people do not consent to get married. ...

....people may enter into a contract with whomever they choose, as long as both parties agree. Whether they are opposite sexes or the same is not for the government to decide. It is only the two parties involved.

Excellent comment planetxan, you are right about the freedom of two consenting adults engaging in a contractual agreement and how the government has no right to get in the way. Maybe one day you will realize too, that this freedom also applies to economic freedom, and extends to someone who wants to buy a t-shirt made in China, or to buy a Toyota from Japan.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygamist-family-risking-jail/story?id=...

However, you and many other posters above seem convinced that a three or more polygamous arrangement is just NOT possible, and has to be due to some oppression or coercion of some sort.

Check out the ABC story I linked to, All of the adults are consenting and want to get married. Why does the state not allow them to? Is it not their constitutional right to? Is it not their human right to?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Again, you pose a false choice. The Constitutional case for extending marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples is that they deserve the same rights established for others. The law does not raise all the philosophical or theoretical possibilities of moral theology regarding what marriage ought to or might be. Your questions about close kin and more than two people being bonded in marriage belong to legislation or the role of Congress, not the courts. It would be improper judicial activism to introduce a general expansion of marriage beyond the right of all couples of all sexual orientations to be able to enjoy equality before the law. This is why marriage equality has nothing to do with polygamy or marrying goats, etc.

I think you do introduce some interesting questions about how we have decided as a society to define what limits marriage in the case of close relations. While familly members do have many rights and privileges of association and intimacy not extended beyond kinship, I doubt that they have all the rights and privileges of marriage. That may mean that we would want to extend more to cousins who want to be married than we do; but this would be about their marriage, not about their being cousins who want all the rights and privileges of married couples. Congress could debate and consider such proposals, but there is no constitutional issue for minorities of convenience or exception, unlike a large class of people who are discriminated against because of who they are as gay and lesbian in orientation.

Where I think you are wrong is that just because the State recognizes and establishes marriage as equally available to all does not mean that its "definition of marriage" has to go beyond the standards base in reasonable concerns about close relations and polygamy. The courts were not addressing that kind of question, just whether banning gay and lesbian citizens what was available to heterosexual citizens was constitutional. These are separate legal questions no matter how interesting the issues you raise might be from a legislative perspective.

What anyone else believes about group marriage or cousins is irrelevant to this legal issue.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Congress could debate and consider such proposals, but there is no constitutional issue for minorities ...

I agree with you 100%. Society has the right, nay obligation, via it's vehicle of Congress, to define the limits of marriage.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

As long as it does not establish unjustified and illogical, unequal discrimination. That is what the Court ruled about. If Congress, in its infinite wisdom, and with its accountability to the people, decided to expand the definition of marriage as you have suggested, it would apply to all. Congress may not simply establish discrimination or fly in the face of science and appropriate social concerns to do willy nilly defining. Getting rid of prejudice is hard work. That is why we have to do more than accept whatever has been defined by things like racism, homophobia, misogyny or anti-sinisterism. Yes, left-handed people were subjected to discrimination and forced to learn to do things right-handed. It was wrong.

Society does not have the "right" to establish wrong.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Is George Zimmerman Right?

It's time to listen to George Zimmerman. Seriously, and I'll explain in a minute.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system