posted
Warning, this is a gay marriage thread in disguise.
Right now there are two men getting married in Massachuetses - and a man and two women in Utah who cannot.
The definition of marriage has changed.
But if the definition of marriage is allowed to change, have we changed it enough? After all, consider polygamy.
Polygamy is currently illegal in every state. Back in the old days, when marriage was applied only to relationships between one man and one woman, we believed it was okay to legally restrict the definition of marriage to exclude gays and polygamists and other groups whose brand of love defied our conventions. But now gay marriage has proven that we are legally bound to take the broadest possible definition of "marriage", lest we exclude any person from their basic right to the sort of marriage they want.
If you believe that marriage is the formalized linking of two people, dedicated to each other by the undeniable bonds of love, then you can not stand in the way of two people in love, no matter who they are - even if they currently have other loves at the same time. Right?
And yet, our nation DOES still stand in the way. We discriminate against polygamists and refuse to allow true love to be formalized, unless it is the traditional one-on-one sort of love that the majority favors. But why? If we are going to broaden the definition of marriage to include relationships between two men or two women, how can we then refuse to also broaden it to include three or more people as well?
Is there ANY good reason beyond because we, the majority, think marriage should be about two people, not three or four? Is it bigotry perhaps - because we think all polygamists are just out to 'own women'?
Who are we to step in the way of all powerful, unstoppable, unconquerable love - espcially after we have stepped out of the way for gay marriage?
How could our ban on polygamy be anything but unfair favortism of the gay definition of marriage over the polygamist definition, and a failure for Romantics everywhere?
posted
Nah, this is just one of those issues certain sides try to avoid addressing by repeatedly calling it a "just a straw man", and hoping that nobody notices it ain't.
posted
It's not a straw man; it's a slippery slope.
And it's a VALID slippery slope, unless you believe there is a practical, legal distinction between joining two people in a social contract and joining multiple people in a social contract.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it's a VALID slippery slope, unless you believe there is a practical, legal distinction between joining two people in a social contract and joining multiple people in a social contract.
Yep. Lucky for me, I do believe that.
It's the practical, legal distinctions that make law fun!
posted
To elaborate, let's look at some basic math. A contract with 2 parties has 1 relationship in it (assuming the relationship of party A to B is the same as the relationship of party B to C).
A contract with 3 parties has 3 relationships (A to B, A to C, and B to C).
A contract with 4 has 6 (A to B, A to C, A to D, B to C, B to D, C to D).
A contract with N has (N^2)/2-(N/2).
This math underestimates the level of complexity added by increasing the number of parties. For any given legal judgment, you have to select the relevant relationships, resolve the dispute for each of those relationships, and decide how that resolution will affect the other relationships.
Marriage is convenient because it provides a single default answer to a bunch of questions. Changes to marriage that don't affect this convenience are low- or no- cost, making the cost/benefit analyisis of the change very easy. Changes that do affect this convenience require that the cost/benefit analysis be calculated.
posted
In that case, let's ban people with children from getting married. After all, if a man has two kids, and a woman has two kids, that's six parties involved - more complicated than one woman with two husbands or one man with two wives.
posted
And you can come up with a better response than just calling the point you disagree with stupid, Dagonee. If you're going to base an argument on the assumption that we should ban marriages based on the complexity of the relationship, you're going to have to explain things like these.
Xavier, If this thread fits your definition of Troll, it's time to find a new definition. As I seem to end up bringing up often, a Troll is NOT someone who brings up ideas you don't like or disagree with.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, I won't assume you're smart enough to recognize the difference in complexity caused by the number of majority members and those caused by the number of minority members.
Since a person can only have two biological parents, the number two serves the purpose of simplifying the legal relationships when children are involved.
Got that? Two parents. Two marriage partners. Legal constructs that deal with marriage simplify determination of the parent/child relationship.
posted
So why not alter the marriage contract so it parellels a business contract? You could have as many people married as you wanted. Each would have an equal share in the marriage. The parties could elect a marriage chairman to be the default decision maker for the group. Sure, they'd have to write up bylaws and hold marriage board meetings, but why not? If marriage is just a secular contract, what difference does it make?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
if you think children don't play a MAJOR role in a family coming together, you should re-examine things...
and my understanding is that it's fairly common in polyamorous situations for the individual lovers to take seperate lovers, so your math isn't always right... the three lovers in your first example could merely be two relationships and four parties could have three: the central one, and each of them having an unrelated offshoot... it could be as few as N-1 relationships...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, if marriage is being redefined, then as a country we have to allow polygamy. After all how is polygamy any less justified than gay marriage? Or heterosexual marriage for that matter?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why not alter the marriage contract so it parellels a business contract? You could have as many people married as you wanted. Each would have an equal share in the marriage. The parties could elect a marriage chairman to be the default decision maker for the group. Sure, they'd have to write up bylaws and hold marriage board meetings, but why not? If marriage is just a secular contract, what difference does it make?
Because marriage is not just a secular contract. It is a legal relationship with many legal repurcussions that automatically attach. Poly marriages could be done as contracts so as not to render the legal entity of marriage useless.
quote: Because marriage is not just a secular contract. It is a legal relationship with many legal repurcussions that automatically attach.
I guess not being married myself, I've missed something. I thought marriage established two people as next of kin and gave them inheritance rights. Is there more to it that can't be duplicated for multiple parties as long as one person serves a chairman to speak for the group? His or her powers would be established by the bylaws in accordance with current marriage rights.
It's a little more complicated, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't do the same thing with multiple people.
quote: Poly marriages could be done as contracts so as not to render the legal entity of marriage useless.
If it established the same legal stuff, wouldn't it all be marriage? The traditional one would just have two partners instead of three or eight or whatever. After all, what the state issues is essentially just a contract, right?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would you need to elect a chairman or establish bylaws in a group marriage situation? A traditional, two person marriage does not have a default decision maker. The parties decide together how they're going to handle things. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be getting married. Same goes for people who choose to live together in a group situation.
Now, if they decided that the way they're going to handle things is through a marriage chairman and bylaws, fine, but that shouldn't be legislated as part of allowing them to marry.
Note: I'm not saying I'm for or against the idea of polygamy/polyandry being legalized. I'm just saying if it's going to happen, there should not be rules imposed on it that are not imposed on traditional unions.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, I know in the current system, one person automatically becomes the other's next of kin. That person has the final say on what happens to that person if they are incapacitated. It also says who inherates if there's no will.
In a group setting, how would you decide who the next of kin is if there was a disagreement? Someone would have to be legally designated. I guess property rights wouldn't matter so much since each person would just have an equal share of the group assests. If there was a disagreement, the court could just order them to liquidate the assests and divide the money equally. Child custody could be tricky, but since custody largely goes to the biological mother, it shouldn't be too bad, either.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AR, the fact that it's more complicated is why it doesn't need to be done. Sure, it could be done. But the benefits of marriage (encouraging stable units for producing new members of society) are not enhanced by allowing it, and the legislatures of this country have decided poly marriage doesn't further those goals, and could hinder them.
There's no such finding with respect to homosexual marriage.
posted
Not to be snarky, but is the basic idea then marriage is about something more than just a legal contract as long as it isn't about God?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Marriage is given legal sanction because doing so helps maintain what society has decided is the preferred unit for creating and raising future members of society. That is the societal benefit that makes the costs of marriage worth it, given that our society has decided to not take religious benefits into account when evaluating possible laws.
Allowing homosexual couples to marry adds negligible, if any costs, to the legal sanction. Therefore there is little, if any, reason to deny it to them. The same is not true for changing the number of people in the relationship.
posted
Polygamy provides more potential sexual partners to create offspring with. It also provides extra parents to raise said offspring.
Homosexuality is inherately childless. The couple will have to go outside of their relationship to procreate. Not occasionally due to mechanical failures but every time. This creates additional stress and cost to procure the offspring.
Of the two, polygamy seems to be better suited to making and caring for offspring. So there should, by your argument, be more sociatal benefit for polygamy than either traditional marriage or homosexual marriage.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But polygamous marriages have been found to be less equal, and provide less parent per child (although pooling of resources may offset this somewhat). Society as a whole has decided that the family unit it wants to encourage is based on the heterosexual two-person marriage. There are rational social reasons for its choice.
Allowing homosexuals to take advantage of the institution at little or no cost, and can provide additional benefits for society (Chris Bridges has pointed these out several times).
I'm not saying polygamy is necessarily a bad idea, I'm saying that allowing a low cost change to marriage that increases equality and justice without fundamentally affecting the civil costs of it does not mandate making wholesale changes that do affect the civil cost of it.
posted
Dag, since my general frustration with the subject is not directed at you but at the general arguments for homosexual marriage, I'm having a hard time responding to this. Your internal logic is sound. I just don't happen to agree with it. But I don't agree with polygamy, either.
I guess my biggest frustration is with the general lack of data. We know polygamy isn't all that effective becuase we've studied it and seen it in action. We have little to no conclusive data on homosexuality. Heck, we don't even know what causes it. Is it a gene somewhere? Is it the chemical composition of the brain? A learned response from mimicing the behaviors of those around us? We don't know the first thing about it, but we're ready to go charging in, say it's just as good as heterosexual marriage, and brand anyone hesitant about the subject fasciast bigots.
For most supporters, the argument has something to do with fairness, equal rights, or straight-people-have-crappy-marriages-so-what-does-it-matter. Lalo's about the only person I've seen whose argument has been that a homosexual realtionship is just as good as any heterosexual realtionship. He's the only one I've seen who felt it didn't need to be excused.
Most people seem to support it becuase it's what everyone else is doing. Their logic tends to be pathetic and ignores their own inherant prejudices. Since you have not made any of those claims in this thread, I'll just have to say good job. That was a good round of debate. Maybe I'll get you next time. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess my biggest frustration is with the general lack of data. We know polygamy isn't all that effective becuase we've studied it and seen it in action. We have little to no conclusive data on homosexuality. Heck, we don't even know what causes it. Is it a gene somewhere? Is it the chemical composition of the brain? A learned response from mimicing the behaviors of those around us? We don't know the first thing about it, but we're ready to go charging in, say it's just as good as heterosexual marriage, and brand anyone hesitant about the subject fasciast bigots.
This is not quite accurate. No, there is no conclusive evidence of what the cause of homosexuality is. But homosexuality and homosexual marriage are not the same thing. There is concrete evidence that homosexual unions can be just as good as heterosexual marriages. Also, while I have witnessed some branding of fascist bigots, in most cases, it has been aimed at people who truly are bigoted in their statements. People who truly feel hesitant about the subject and wish to make an informed decision have, at least in my experience, been treated kindly and fairly, despite their disagreements with people from whom they are seeking information.
quote:For most supporters, the argument has something to do with fairness, equal rights, or straight-people-have-crappy-marriages-so-what-does-it-matter. Lalo's about the only person I've seen whose argument has been that a homosexual realtionship is just as good as any heterosexual realtionship. He's the only one I've seen who felt it didn't need to be excused.
Most people seem to support it becuase it's what everyone else is doing. Their logic tends to be pathetic and ignores their own inherant prejudices.
For the life of me, I just can’t see the fault with someone supporting a side of an issue based on its “fairness” and equality. Isn’t that the crux of the argument? And every supporter I’ve come across feels that homosexual relationships can be “just as good” as heterosexual relationships. And just for the record, its not “what everyone else is doing”. If you hadn’t noticed, it’s a fight that is being carried out against a majority opinion. As for inherent prejudices, everybody has them and choosing to ignore them is not terribly easy to do. It is a conscious decision. In my opinion, it is a noble thing to ignore your own tendencies to do something that you feel is hurtful to someone else and to respect the rights of that person. I think it would be great if everyone were just as comfortable with homosexuality as they are heterosexuality. That kind of equality is not going to happen until people can swallow equality on a piece of paper.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thread. I remember hearing something about polygamy when I was little, and being confused as to why it was illegal. I mean, if that's what people want, why not let them? I'm still confused.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But polygamous marriages have been found to be less equal
quote:We know polygamy isn't all that effective becuase we've studied it and seen it in action.
So we've written it off because a few zealous Mormons and sexist Islamic cultures have screwed it up for the rest of us?
I disagree too, Dag, that the costs outweigh the benefits. Any costs due to a change in the laws, I feel, will be in the short-term and will be next to nothing in the long. And the benefit will be, at least, a restoration of a civil liberty that shouldn't have been removed in the first place.
And I think it should be given a chance to succeed in this day and age--we're more equal, aware, and supervised. I'm not saying we should lift all boundaries and give them everything a typical couple could expect (tax loopholes could be a nightmare), but to make it conditionally legal, at least, would be a wonderful start.
Oh, and Xav: Don't be a tool. Save the "troll" accusations for those who deserve them.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not saying Tres is normally a troll. In fact, most of the time, I even agree with him on an issue.
If you read my definition on the Soup Kitchen thread, you would see what I meant. Both me and Dag thought Tres was pretending to believe that the compications in a polygomous marriage are the same as those in normal nuclear family.
My definition included someone who pretends to believe in an idea in order to be obtuse or inflammatory, but really doesn't.
Turns out he actually did believe it. Or at least claims to.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty broad definition. Besides, even when Tres is playing Devil's advocate, I don't fint him obtuse or deliberately inflammatory. I see him arguing positions he maybe doesn't necessarily agree with, but arguing all sides of an issue is only going to make one (and possibly others) more knowledgable on the subject as a whole.
So whether or not I believe that someone is aguing from the heart, I like to take the points at face value rather than wait around for someone I'm positive is not "faking it" to raise the issue.
What a world this would be if more people could see from the other perspective. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: For the life of me, I just can’t see the fault with someone supporting a side of an issue based on its “fairness” and equality.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear, WA. My point was not that it's bad to be fair. But if someone is going to argue gay marriage based on fairness, denial of equal rights, or, my personal favorite, straight-marriages-suck-anyway, it doesn't make sense to not support polygamy.
After all, if three people love each other, who are we to tell them they can't? Just because it's not our lifstyle, why should we run around shoving our morals or religious beliefs down their throats?
If men who loved multiple women could marry them all, we could see a decrease in marital infidelity and a drop in the divorce rates. We could see a moral benefit.
quote: And just for the record, its not “what everyone else is doing”. If you hadn’t noticed, it’s a fight that is being carried out against a majority opinion.
Actually, we're about 50/50 as a nation. My point was, it seems like a lot of people are jumping up and down screaming about gay rights but perfectly willing to ignore everyone else. Gay is in. Therefore, homosexuals ought to be able to get married, but anyone who wants to marry more than one person isn't cool enough for the same arguments to apply to them.
quote: As for inherent prejudices, everybody has them and choosing to ignore them is not terribly easy to do. It is a conscious decision. In my opinion, it is a noble thing to ignore your own tendencies to do something that you feel is hurtful to someone else and to respect the rights of that person.
I completely agree with you. That's why even though I don't agree with homosexuality, I'm not out advocating they be beaten or anything. However, it's also why it bothers me when the liberals on this board start to get holier-than-thou on the subject. When I pointed out that we're not even sure homosexuality is healthy for the homosexual, the most common response I got was "So something has to be healthy to be legal?" That isn't the response of a person who believes it's exactly the same thing.
quote: Also, while I have witnessed some branding of fascist bigots, in most cases, it has been aimed at people who truly are bigoted in their statements.
Having been called those exact words several times, I resent that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree too, Dag, that the costs outweigh the benefits. Any costs due to a change in the laws, I feel, will be in the short-term and will be next to nothing in the long. And the benefit will be, at least, a restoration of a civil liberty that shouldn't have been removed in the first place.
Frisco, my arguments aren't so much to show that polygamy shouldn't be legal, they're to show that it is possible to support homosexual marriage and not polygamy in a consistent, logical manner. That's all.
quote:What a world this would be if more people could see from the other perspective.
Good - someone to join my effort to try to help gay marriage advocates do just that.
posted
"someone to join my effort to try to help gay marriage advocates do just that."
Might I suggest, Dag, that focusing your efforts on the other side -- the actual obstructionists -- might be more worth everyone's while?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is downright impossible in the atmosphere of dismissal that gets generated here, especially with the vicious restatements and minimization of the other side's arguments.
To get someone to change their mind, you must develop a rapport with them and show that you understand their view. That's very different than arguing with person A in an attempt to convince the observers, not person A. The latter is more fun, easier to do, and allows use of a wider range of rhetorical techniques.
The observers aren't the ones who need to change their minds. The people who take the time to participate in these threads will be far more effective advocates for equal marriage rights than the people who haven't even attempted to articulate a position other than "yes" or "no."
posted
So, rather than attempt to persuade any of the anti-gay-marriage crowd here on Hatrack, you see it as your mission to get those of us who are pro-gay-marriage to sympathize more closely with them, so that WE might better do your work for you?
See, I think the problem you're going to have is that several of us KNOW the anti-gay-marriage arguments; we just think they're close-minded and baseless. Believe it or not, telling someone, "I disagree with you only because I disagree with your primary premises, not the logic you've used to reach your conclusions" will NOT in fact make them listen to you more closely; in my experience, it just makes them MORE upset due to the fact that you've just challenged premises they can't logically defend.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that they can't be logically defended at all, but that we find the alternative totally inexplicable. It's hard to make an argument against something that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. I UNDERSTAND it. It makes sense to me. I just think they're absolutely, completely, and inarguably wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine Tom. Then this will never be solved. It's that simple.
The point is, it's not the starting premises that need changing - this will never happen. It's the effect the change will have on those premises that needs to be debated.
But having rejected their starting premise, without truly understanding it, leaves no hope for actually presenting an alternative way of looking at the changes.
The other problem I have, more with the casual comment inserters than those who actually make arguments, is the anti-religious (specifically, anti-Christian) tone so many of them take.
posted
Um...you misunderstand ME, Tom. I'm one of those opposed. I honestly don't understand where you're coming from, because the notion of "marriage" between two people of the same sex sounds as oxymoronic as a square circle. How do you argue that square circles can't exist, beyond just saying that it's obvious?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then Mabus, the question to you is, even if that premise is true, why shouldn't the available legal rights, benefits, and obligations associated with a 2-person heterosexual marriage be available to a 2-person homosexual couple? Forget the name when you answer the question - just think about the civil, legal entity.
quote:So, rather than attempt to persuade any of the anti-gay-marriage crowd here on Hatrack, you see it as your mission to get those of us who are pro-gay-marriage to sympathize more closely with them, so that WE might better do your work for you?
Oh, and I have attempted to persuade them. The whole reason I'm in this thread is to attack a common argument against them.
posted
As I understand it, the rights and privileges associated with being married exist for two reasons: a) to provide an enhanced home environment for potential children and b) because marriage has long been considered to have a special religious status deserving of special protection.
A doesn't apply to homosexual relationships under the vast majority of circumstances; they can have children only by adoption or (among lesbians) by artificial insemination. B could arguably be unconstitutional and even if it weren't wouldn't apply to unions that most churches don't sanction.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But given that the mechanism is in place already and it costs next to nothing to expand the use of it, why shouldn't it be done? Especially considering the number of benefits that attach that are not directly related to the two purposes you described.
And frankly, the religious argument, if it's acceptable at all, must cut both ways. Several religious institutions do recognize homosexual marriage.
posted
Dag, sorry the tread moved on, but you were arguing that there was a huge difference between adding kids to a marriage and adding partners:
quote:Fine, I won't assume you're smart enough to recognize the difference in complexity caused by the number of majority members and those caused by the number of minority members.
I still maintain that in so saying, you are underestimating the influence of children, and specifically stepchildren, on a family.
I realize the argument is long past that point now and feel free not to go back and address it, but I did want to answer you.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simple. Those aren't the only two purposes for the legal status of marriage. There's also the purpose for the couple to be enabled and protected in exchange for forming a more stable unit of society -- irrespective of childbirth.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
