quote:Eddie, I'm not misconstruing your posts. Nobody is saying that monogamy and polygamy are exactly the same. I'm just saying that they're same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not.
In which case, Eddie, you would agree that prostitution and homosexual marriage are the same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not?
In which case, if homosexual monogamy is legalized, it can only be done with the added legalization of prostitution?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they all involve an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship. Committed relationship is committed relationship is committed relationship.
Except for the math, of course.
I'm having trouble believing I need to repeat myself a fourth time. ZGator, you could make an arguable case for the merits of polygamy. No doubt you could persuade me to support it, given time. But a committed relationship between two people is not the same as a relationship between three or more. Note that I'm not dismissing polygamy as less equal or worse -- nor am I making ridiculous claims that a different proportion would somehow make a polygamous relationship worse than a monogamous one based off tired cliches of the fundamental differences between men and women.
However, monogamy is not in the same ballpark as polygamy. While both involve relationships and commitment, which makes them more closely related than, say, homosexuality and prostitution, they're very different institutions and deserve better than to be lumped together under the same generalization.
If homosexual monogamy is legalized in the United States, no doubt a case could be made to legalize polygamy. No doubt the release of homophobic policies held by the government would be a huge step forward in allowing polygamous relationships to gain further ground in their own battle. But the fight for freedom of monogamy and freedom of polygamy are not the same, regardless of their very few similarities, and it's intellectually dishonest of anyone to claim that they are.
quote:They're not the same, but they're certainly comparable. They're all vehicles, they all run on an internal combustion engine. They're much more alike than when they are compared to a building or a river. Nobody is saying they're the same, just comparable.
I'm not advocating polygamy, not by a long shot. And I've already stated that I'm OK with legalizing homosexual marriage. But thus far, all the arguments I've seen for homosexual marriages could be used for polygamous marriages as well. Like Frisco, I'm looking at this more as an intellectual exercise.
They have more in common than trucks do with buildings or rivers, true -- but as I said to Frisco, despite their statuses (statii?) as legitimate sexual practices suppressed by a hyper-righteous majority, they aren't the same. Thank god you've finally admitted that much; this repetition of my position was growing more than a little tiring.
Polygamy and monogamy are comparable, I agree. As I've agreed over and over. But in no way are they the same as the other.
quote:And if you had paid attention, you would realize that your statement immediately followed a quote from me. How is it that you were addressing kat when you had just quoted me?
Actually, in context, I was quoting myself. Katharina was lying again, and misconstruing my position. I've reproduced the section below, with a newly edited bolding of the section you may have missed. Looking back, I can see how you were confused -- it was my response to your quote I cited, and it's not hard to jump from there to believing I was replying to you.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo, really - what's the deal with being against polygamy but for gay marriage?
What if the second spouse was the same sex - you know, one spouse for reproduction, one for whatever, and everyone legally covered. Are you better with that? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Kat. Exactly. I'm for homosexual marriage, but against polygamy. The only way I'd be happy is if it were homosexual polygamy.
Just, y'know, out of curiosity, how did you pull that crap out of what I said? Reproduced below, in italics:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
In any case, ZGator, thanks for addressing most of my points -- it's far more intellectually honest than many people in this thread have been.
And speaking of which, this next post's for Katharina.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sure, why not compare something totally destructive to a civilized society to a marital institution.
But even so, prostitution is happening, and it's dangerous as hell. Why not legalize it? Make it 100% safer for patrons and prostitues alike.
I'll interested in hearing your views on polygamy when the piss evaporates from your Special K, seeing as you find it as comparable to prostitution as it is to homosexual monogamy.
I'll quote myself here real quick:
quote: And I agree that there are specific differences in homosexual monogamy and general polygamy. I just find a bigger issue in whether or not the government can regulate my love life.
[edit: heh...Zan and I have pretty much echoed each other in this thread...and he gets praised and I get a bad analogy. Go figure.]
posted
You know, to me the difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage is much like what, in my own head, I believe Lalo is saying. So, let's use the analogy I have in my head.
It's Valentine's Day and you've just won a "romantic dinner for you and your sweetheart." Now, the "anti-homosexual marriage people" seem to believe that "you and your sweetheart" means that a man and a woman will be showing up for dinner. The "pro-homosexual marriage" people thing that two people of any combination of sex will show up.
And for some reason, a few of the "anti-homosexual marriage" people seem to think that it should be perfectly fine for some guy and 19 wives to show up and not consider accommodating 20 people any different than accommodating 2.
So, can you tell me that that 2 people, male/female, male/male, or female/female really isn't any different from male/female/female/female/female/etc.? I'd like to bet that the restaurant owner feels that there is one hell of a difference.
There are legal entitlements to marriage between 2 people. The fact that some of y'all want those entitlements to only go to heterosexuals is your hangup. Extending entitlements to 5 wives is a whole different bag of worms. (What would you do if 5 wives all had differing opinions about what to do with a brain-dead husband? I mean, there has to be one person in charge, not 5.)
Marriage, and all the entitlements that come with it, should involve 2 people. Just like it does right now. Whether or not they need to be of opposite sexes is what we should be discussing.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Lalo, it isn't that you are open-minded. It isn't that you have a great understanding of what's going on.
What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
Caleb's already ripped your lies apart, but you've ignored him, insisting that he's not "let[ting] me play" and you want me to waste more of my life dissecting the lies Caleb's already taken apart.
But even beyond the offense I take at your insinuation that Caleb's post about your lies isn't good enough because he wrote it, I'm more than a little amazed you seem to expect that demanding two dissections of your lies would be better rather than simply responding to Caleb's original post with a simple apology and affirmation of honorable intentions. With your continued behavior of ignoring his posts and misconstruing even them, I'm afraid I no longer have any hope that your intentions, while still enigmatic and unclear as they were before, can no longer be misunderstood as even remotely honorable.
In the section above, you start out by declaring that I'm not open-minded and disconnected from "what's going on." While this section seems a non-sequitor in the context of any post, you exacerbate the problem by moving away from these unjustified lies and declare my "opposition to polygamy," despite my repeated declarations of my unresolved stance on polygamy, neither condemning it nor supporting it.
This, by itself, is an inexcusable lie. I've reproduced below every judgement I've passed on polygamy up to the time you posted this crap -- please, tell me which ones you used to justify this lie.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!
Yes, Doug. Allowing state-recognized monogamy between homosexuals and heterosexuals is exactly like polygamy.
And what if someone wants to marry themselves... Heh. Wow. There's a brainteaser for you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZGator, like I said, polygamy's an entirely different can of beans. Heterosexual and homosexual monogamy are equivalent, especially by my definition of them. Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple. Polygamy, as I said above in my address to Kat, may be able to stand on its own in an argument -- but in an argument over monogamy, I'm afraid I fail to see how it's compatible with the discussion.
Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Am I the only one reading my posts?
ZGator, I've repeatedly testified that I don't have any committed problems with polygamy. While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either. Polygamy, as I'm saying again for the third time, has its arguable merits. That doesn't mean polygamy is monogamy, no matter how you try to judge both based off their popular stigma.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oy. C'mon, Eddie, read the posts. I'm not necessarily condemning polygamy. But polygamy, as I've said over and over again, isn't monogamy. I expect better from you than to misconstrue my posts.
After lying about my supposed opposition, you then go on to wonder about why it doesn't exist. You come up with the oh-so-original that I find it "squicky" -- presumably, an obnoxious euphemism for the euphemism "icky." You base this lie off nothing, especially considering my willingness to consider (gasp!) sex between those sexual deviants, homosexuals, and even endorse the legalization of marriage in order to provide equal rights.
Doubtless you're projecting some arguments you've heard against intolerant or bigoted people who want to suppress equal rights for homosexuals, and you're trying to convince yourself that lying about my position, then lying about the reasons why I would hold such a position (even when your lies about my intentions are in blatant opposition to everything I've ever written). It's not very clever, Katharine.
From your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy, you move on to another lie -- and insult -- about supposed neediness in a relationship, and how I wouldn't like polygamy because I'm oh-so-high-maintenance in my relationships. This is probably the most surprising lie you've told yet, especially considering the source. But, of course, you go on to then pretend-retract the remarks, without actually doing so.
quote:Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
Of course you don't believe it. I don't really see how you could, unless you're particularly good at convincing yourself of the lies you concoct.
Speaking of which, you move on to your next lie. Technically speaking, it's not a lie -- I have produced less argument against polygamy than anyone else here has against homosexuality -- but in the context of your many, many lies, you accuse me of not only being weak-minded and needy, but inconsistent and cowardly. You imply that I've produced as little reasoning or proof behind my posts as you have -- an insult I take deeply to heart, especially considering my long labor to make my positions as clear as possible.
Of course, then you revert back to a former lie and declare that my supposed intolerance for polygamy stems from my supposed declarations of its "squicky" nature.
Then, of course, you make your first actual assertation on the topic. While it's incorrect, unreasoned, unwarranted, and probably an intentional lie, at least you're addressing the issue instead of making up fantasies about the people behind the positions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then Caleb went on to dissect your post, pointing out a few lies and giving you a gentle and generous breakdown of your penchant for lies. You fail to respond to his post, or even acknowledge his position -- instead, you give him an emoticon instead of an actual response or apology.
From there, Caleb calls you on your avoidance of the issues. You respond with this:
quote:Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
"This"? He didn't come anywhere near addressing the issue at hand in the thread, only your constant lies and avoidance issues. Then you ignore the work he put into pointing out your habitual lying and declare that you want me to respond for myself, a selfish demand that both insults Caleb's work and worth and takes precious time away from me to address the lies Caleb had already taken partial care of.
Caleb calmy responds with the following post, pointing out your rude and deceitful debate tactics.
quote:Acutally, I wasn't even arguing about "this" in my post. My purpose in that post was to call you on the way you try to "argue". Sure, Lalo can take care of himself, but I see no reason why I can't point out when you are using lies to forward your perspective. It HAS been better lately because you haven't been doing this as often.
And I'm sure you'll be offended that I'm implying that you're a liar. But surely you don't expect to get away with it when you put inconsistent words in other people's mouths just so you can appear to have footing in an argument where you have been shown to have none.
But then we already know that you don't respond to specific questions and you rarely--if ever--treat opposing viewpoints with respect, logic, or truth. I just keep pointing it out in the hopes that you might one day treat others the way you would like to be treated.
And that has many meanings in the context of this conversation, wouldn't you say?
You respond with the following, completely ignoring what Caleb had just posted in favor of pretending he had instead asked you a question about the issue you had been so diligently avoiding.
quote:I'm intrigued by the polygamy question because I see one aspect of marriage (male/female) as being demonized as narrow and quite rightfully changed, and another aspect (two people) as being characterized as essential and inherent in the definition and therefor not subject to change, despite the wishes of some people.
Why is one characteristic supposed to be fluid and the other unassailable?
Caleb points out that you are, again, lying -- nobody in the thread, Caleb asks: "Would you care to provide an example of someone arguing that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because as has been repeated more times than I care to count, no one is arguing this at all."
You respond to this calm and reasonable (and repeated) request for some, any proof behind your lies with another avoidance:
quote:Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Now, as before, you respond to Caleb's question by answering one you made up. You flatter me by declaring, in direct opposition to your former posts, that I'm a man of principle -- a sudden transformation from the weak-minded, high-maintenance fool who relies on inconsistent principles and unreasonable argument -- then again lie and declare that I accept same-sex marriage but oppose polygamous union.
One final time, Caleb asks you to provide a shred of reasoning behind your lies.
quote:What you can't do without losing credibility is put that hypocrisy in someone else's mouth and then call on them to justify it. Again, I ask, can you provide a single quote from this entire thread that would indicate where someone felt--it would be great if it was Lalo, since you got so much glee out of bashing him with your post--that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
You respond by offering him a Klondike bar and asking if his question means he won't "let [me] play."
Caleb finishes with you with a quote that's etched on my memory.
quote:My only possible response to that post is that I think Lalo has the right to play whenever he wants to and with whomever he wants to, just like you and I. God bless America.
Heh. Brilliant, dude.
Of course, Kat, you ignore him once again in favor of putting the Klondike bar in a freezer, then going "back" to me, as though I had already responded to your lies.
"*waves around "Explain this" sign*"
I hope I've done so. I've explained each lie you've provided, and in great detail. Doubtless, you'll ignore it -- I notice when you saw I was posting, you immediately declared your departure for the weekend -- but I hope someone out there will have a better idea of who and what you really are.
I found out the last time Kayla reamed you. I remember Kayla posting posts longer than three pages in response to your lies, and getting one-sentence responses that wondered why Kayla was just so mean and aggressive? You avoided every question of hers you didn't lie about, and wound up frustrating her as a writer and infuriating myself and others like me, who were reading the thread.
You're a thrice-damned liar, Kat, just from the combined posting of Kayla, Caleb, and myself.
I hope I've answered your "Explain this" sign adequately.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we stated earlier that fitting polygamy into society would require a few more details to be worked out than homosexual monogamy.
For instance, when the restaurant owner offers a date for "you and your sweetheart", singular, you may only bring one sweetheart. When he invites you and your family to his Christmas party, you can bring all three.
Your biggest argument is that multiple wives might disagree over pulling the plug?! Egads!
You say that marriage should include two people. Why?! Because that's the way we've always done it? I know you could give me better reasons if they existed. Do they?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Heh. And you say that before reading my response to Kat's lies.
quote:Sure, why not compare something totally destructive to a civilized society to a marital institution.
Actually, I support the legalization of prostitution. I believe the current black-market model is destructive, and ought to be changed. Here's an Ornery thread I started on the topic.
quote:I'll interested in hearing your views on polygamy when the piss evaporates from your Special K, seeing as you find it as comparable to prostitution as it is to homosexual monogamy.
You've heard them. Over and over again. Specifically, I don't have them. I'm not a firm supporter of polygamy, but neither am I about to condemn it. I haven't taken the time to formulate a position, and I have no intention of doing so until I have more real-world examples of polygamous relationships and how they work.
quote:*bats eyelashes*
Lalo, would like to marry me-- and Ron? He's really hot.
I'm sorry about that. I just couldn't resist. I've been fighting it for a whole day now, and it just had to come out.
Olivia, dude, I'm all up in that shiznit. But if Ron wants some, he'd better start shaving his legs. My imagination's good, but it's not that good.
Especially since, if I ever do go gay, it'll be for Caleb.
That's right, Eddie. I went there. Talk to the hand, Mr. Five-Minutes-Ago!
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you have no opinions or views on polygamy, yet have no problem comparing it to prostitution or insisting to everyone that it's nothing like homosexual monogamy on a moral scale?
Um. Okay.
And don't worry about leaving me for Caleb. I got a proposal from Karl last page.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you have no opinions or views on polygamy, yet have no problem comparing it to prostitution or insisting to everyone that it's nothing like homosexual monogamy on a moral scale?
If you'll notice, I also compared homosexual monogamy -- about which I have very strong opinions -- to prostitution. I don't consider it the insult you seem to.
And while I'm not decided on which way to judge polygamy, anyone can tell a platypus from a duck, even if they've never seen a platypus before. I've yet to form an opinion on polygamy because I simply don't have enough real-world models of it, but it's hardly the equivalent -- morally or mathematically -- to monogamy. Polygamy may not be better or worse than monogamy, but it's not the same.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NOBODY SAID IT WAS THE SAME! NOBODY! NOBODY SAID IT WAS THE SAME! NOBODY! NOBODY SAID IT WAS THE SAME! NOBODY!
I said they were both similar instances of the government encroaching on my love life in the name of Christian morals!
Yes, you can tell that a duck isn't a platypus without having to see the platypus. If we were talking about number of legs and body hair, that would make a difference. But we're talking about laying eggs! And whether or not you've seen one, you know it lays them.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, apparently those of us who support homosexual marriage rights are not all on the same page on related marriage issues--okay, related in my opinion, anyway.
Kayla, all you analogy shows is that the logistics of marriage benefits would need to be revamped. How 'bout if each spouse only got 1/n of the benefits, with n being equal to the number of spouses? In your analogy, the restaurant manager would be freaking ecstatic if I brought my 20 wives, and each got 1/20th of a free meal! For the price of one meal, he gets 19 other paying customers he might not have had!
quote:In which case, Eddie, you would agree that prostitution and homosexual marriage are the same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not?
In which case, if homosexual monogamy is legalized, it can only be done with the added legalization of prostitution?
I'm all for the legalization of prostitution. I don't think it's a given that it's "totally destructive to a civilized society," either. I think the criminalization of prostitution is just another attempt to legislate morality, and it's even more of a no-brainer than homosexual marriage rights and polygamous marriage rights.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iccy, I said that it was totally destructive in a sense that it promotes instability while not offering anything as far as building. 100% unmaking.
Not totally destructive in a Godzilla sort of way.
posted
I understand what you were saying, but I don't agree. I think it only promotes instability when you are enmeshed in a worldview that teaches that sex is inextricably tied to marriage. There's nothing wrong with defining sex and marriage this way for yourself. Heck, I do. But I have also known married couples with "open" marriages, where the marriage was serious and legit--imo, of course; I doubt some of the more conservative posters would agree--and both members understood that sex with others was accepted. As long as nobody is being deceived, including new partners, I don't see anything destructive in this. Similarly, if nobody was being deceived, I don't see an issue with prostitution. And I certainly don't see any such issue with single people.
Many religions say that such relationships, or such actions, are sinful, and I don't have a problem with that. I personally have defended on Hatrack the rights of Christians to their belief, for instance, that homosexuality is sinful and immoral when I felt that they were being attacked for this religious belief.
But I don't think sexual openness is innately, demonstrably damaging to society. I think all arguments that it is, whether it be in the form of legalizing sodomy, homosexual marriage, polygamy, and prostitution, seem to me to break down into 1) my religion says it's wrong, and B) it's always been disallowed before.
As far as I'm concerned, the issues are absolutely analogous, because they are all views of sexuality and marriage that are contrary to tradition, but, ultimately victimless.
And don't tell me that prostitution victimizes spouses who aren't ok with their spouse visiting a prostitute. Such spouses are being victimized, but not by prostitution, but by their dishonest spouses. A man who cheats on his wife by visiting a prostitute is no different from a man who cheats on his wife with another woman for free. We don't criminalize other kinds of infidelity; we realize it's a moral issue but not one it would be fruitful as a society to try to enforce. We shouldn't be trying to legislate these other issues either.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
I covered the same stuff, but I couldn't go into it that deeply because... well, because this is the same situation that Kat ALWAYS puts us in whenever she comes into a homosexuality thread. I do doubt she'll retract anything at all, because in my experience with Katharina More Reasoning does not equal More Understanding. Quite the opposite, sometimes.
You should have seen the email that she sent me the last time she gave me this slander-and-evade treatment.
The sad thing is that, though I would prefer to simply ignore her posts and avoid conversation with her for the sake of my own sanity, she unerringly puts me in the obligated position of having to defend myself and others from false interpretations of posts and ideologies. I am happy to provide these defenses but it is tiring.
Icarus -
Ultimately these issues are all related. I agree with that. I also agree with pretty much everything you just said in that post.
But to further explain my (our, if I may presume for Lalo and others) reluctance to include polygamy in a discussion of whether or not it's right to allow homosexual marriages, keep in mind that polygamy was brought into this thread by individuals who do not support equal rights for homosexuals. The only reason they could have to raise this issue as an OBJECTION is to provide an example of an "unacceptable" marital relationship that falls under the mantle of being able to marry whomever you want to--not to mention the underlying suggestion that allowing homosexual marriage would drastically change our society overnight, since allowing polygamy is not something the system is fully capable of supporting. Coming from their perspective, this was a double-edged sword: it demonstrated that our "equality morality" was inherently flawed because the logical end of that morality would lead--in their minds--to mass chaos. People everywhere marrying everyone else and before you know it marriage itself becomes about as important as a friendship bracelet. See Katharina's "epiphane":
quote:I think I know where, way back, the trains split tracks.
You're seeing marriage as a way to really, really say "I love you more than anything." Traditionally, marriage has been a way to bind and build society - create a foundation on which society can be built.
Maybe that's why marriage has fallen apart so much?
Can you see the writing between the lines? First of all it's a complete misinterpretation of my post, which said "when you get married you're telling someone that you love them more than anyone else". I was talking about my own theoretical wedding ceremony, not making a blanket statement about what I thought marriage really is. Aside from this minor but typical annoyance, it demostrates their motivating perspective: when society starts to seek living arrangements that are not "traditional", or should we say, God-ordained, everything will start to fall apart.
On the other side of the blade, the polygamy argument destroys our "equality morality" if we say that we do NOT agree with polygamy rights, presumably because they're more comfortable seeing us as the ones for INequality, which is really rich considering the basic tenets of their position on homosexual marriage.
My efforts to separate the two from each other were to avoid this "trap". The simple fact is that nothing about homosexuality needs to be justified and nothing needs to be justified about polygamy, either. But homosexual marriage could happen tomorrow and no one would get hurt--quite the opposite--while polygamy would need a lot of preparation to ensure that our various marital-related systems could handle it fairly. I personally am the type of progressive who wouldn't mind allowing that overnight change immediately and THEN make the system work around it, but that is not an argument that I am prepared to make because I realize that I really have no idea WHAT the immediate consequences of that action would be.
quote: Thank you for stating that so clearly. However, I now have to respond that I think that is a ridiculously simplistic approach to the situation. I believe that out of all the possible changes to the conventional idea of marriage, some proposed changes will have merit and others won't. To simply say, we'll if we let you have your change then we have to implement all changes ad absurdem is to stick your head in the sand. This attitude, I feel, is a cop out and it is, quite frankly, insultingly dismissive of what I feel is a valid complaint.
Remember i'm a libertarian so i want freedom for everybody to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people. But your feelings on this matter are hipocritical. You can't say you support gay marriage because of "freedom" then have it denyed to someone else. You either support freedom for all or special intrest for yourself; don't pretend it is one when it is for the other.
Caleb:
I'm not trying to try you into anything. I support anybody's right to marry whoever they want, including polygamy, but i won't support some special intrest group fighting for "freedom" when they are just trying to help only themselves.
Of course there are two tiers of marriage. Everybody sees it, i'm just the one who points it out.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's all or nothing? You'd rather everybody wait until the majority agrees on everything instead of letting rights be restored as we gradually come to our senses?
So should heterosexuals be stripped of this freedom, too, until everybody becomes equal in the eyes of government?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess you want it like the constitution. White men were given freedoms but not blacks or women. I guess it was better someone got something than nobody got anything.
Edit: The day i learn to spelt will be a good day.
posted
If I understand you correctly, Doug, you are for gay marriage and polygamy both, and therefore our interests are aligned. That we don't see eye to eye on whether or not polygamy and monogamy are analagous choices seems to be something of an afterthought.
But this is odd:
quote:You either support freedom for all or special intrest for yourself; don't pretend it is one when it is for the other.
That argument sounds exactly like you're trying to "trap" Karl's position into hypocrisy. Especially when you take into account that Karl never said he was against polygamy rights.
Your insinuation that homosexual rights activists are simply serving their own jealous "special interests" (as if it was wrong to fight for one's own personal special interest) is silly and insulting. Do you imagine that the Americans who fought the Revolutionary War for independence and---yeah--freedom, were simply a special interest group seeking nothing but personal gain, since they fought the war for, you know, white people? You could just as easily say to the Bush administration "If you're going to take out terrorist states, you have to take out ALL of them at the same time". Now even I, who am against this war in general, realize that that is absurd. A conversation needs to take place before every confrontation. That is the way it works. As it happens, the conversation that needs to take place before homosexual rights are recognized is a substantially different conversation than the one that needs to happen when we take a serious look at polygamy.
None of us are against this conversation.
The problem is that the other side is using the inevitability of the second conversation as a way to invalidate the first.
posted
Problems with legalizing polygamy that are not found in homosexual monogamous relationships.
1. Inheritance benefits: Estates in traditional marriages devolve to the spouse in instances where a will has not been established. In polygamous relationships, is there an equal distribution or do all spouses have individual claims to the entirety of the estate?
2. Divorce from a polygamous union: Does one spouse divorce one other or divorce all the spouses? Can you divorce one spouse, but remain a member of the family unit, choosing not to divorce any of the others? Is that spouse entitled to half of the entire holdings of the estate if they divorce? In a system with one husband and multiple wives, can he divorce the lot of them and then seek sole parental rights on all of the children? If the wives collectively divorce the husband, does he have to pay alimony to all of them (to end when ALL have been married again) and can he be liable for child support to each child? If a woman divorces from the group, can she be held liable for child support for all of the other children as a person who contributed to the overall benefit of the family?
3. Tax liability: Does the husband get multiple tax benefits for children and marriage based on each marriage or a one-time situation. Can the earnings of each spouse be garnished to cover back taxes of the others? For the sale of real property, can state taxes (generally giving a one-time exemption on profits per married couple) be avoided multiple times by pairing each individual spousal relationship?
4. Tax haven harems. Could a man marry numerous wives who already had children in an effort to get tax write offs for each of the children and wives? Would families begin brokering off unwed mothers for this purpose? (Before you protest, think about how this happens in many societies for many reasons.)
5. Establishment of power of attorney. Is it done through a single, primary spouse or is it handled by committee?
6. If the father and mother of some children from a polygamous marriage die, do the children go to the other spouses, or would blood relatives have claim to the children. Now, how about the assignment of life insurance benefits/ social security benefits?
7. Social services: Can the entire family be liable for the poor child rearing practices of a single member? If the entire group is on Welfare and public assistance, would their circumstances make this a profitable way of living? Would the country be supporting a lifestyle financially?
Those are just a few off the top of my head, problems NOT seen in allowing civil marriages of homosexuals. Folks, you are comparing apples and oranges at best, apples and orangutangs at worst.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously, something about them has to be justified-- otherwise there'd be no objection to them.
Don't see the obviousness, myself. I could just as easily object to your right to listen to punk music (and sometimes I even feel that that's a justifiable objection) and you would have no need or obligation to justify your music selection to me. I'm looking for the logic in that statement, Scott, and I need some help.
As to the section of my post referencing katharina, I could say "I think she's a principled woman: let her answer for herself" just for ironic kicks. Instead I'll admit that was a little petty. The problem is that she's done this to me before, and not a few times. That I got unjustified hatemail at the end of the last one really irked me, because I didn't want to post the email and I certainly wouldn't respond to it. Mentioning it here was partial retribution on my part, I suppose.
And for that matter, Lalo was A.) Right B.) Being Attacked and C.) Not being defended by anyone else. I considered it worthwhile to demonstrate my support.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Caleb. Well said. That is exactly my take on it.
I have nothing against polygamous relationships between consenting adults. However, I do have reservations about some of the "ad absurdem" cases. Doug J wrote:
quote: If you want to totaly redefine what marriage is then you must include EVERYBODY under the sun, not just what groups you like. So change it for everybody or don't change it for anybody.
Now maybe I'm mistaking hyperbole for a serious contention, but on this thread "Everybody under the sun" has been said to include not just polygamous relationships, but also incestuous, and inter-species relationships. I do not feel that it is hypocritical of me to say for instance that I think gays should be allowed to marry but that you shouldn't be allowed to marry your dog. I believe there are fundamental differences in the two issues and those differences may very well lead to the allowance of gay marriages and the disallowance of human/canine marriages. The same may also be true of polygamous relationships. If there is a conversation about "should polygamous marriages be legal", it may very well turn out that someone can come up with some valid reasons not to legalize polygamy. If this is the case, that does not change the legitimacy of the arguements of the homosexual rights camp.
Therefore, I do not think it hypocritical to be in favor of one and not the other if you can support your opinion logically. Additionally, since I have already stated that I have no problems with the legalization of polygamous marriage, then your labeling me as a hypocrit is premature on that count.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the thread is off-track with polygamy a little because people are mixing the three aspects to the homosexual civil union debate:
1) Does the government have a compelling interest to in prohibiting a particular type of sexual relationship between consenting adults? (The longevity of the relationship does not matter for this question.)
2) Is it of practical use to the legal system to legally recognize a particular type of relationship?
3) Is it right for the government to provide benefits (of convenience, if nothing else) to one particular type of relationship intended to be a lifetime joining of consenting adults and not another?
The first question has been recently decided against allowing government interference w/ consenting adults acting in private and a non-commercial setting. Outlawing homosexual sex: unconstitutional. Outlawing prostitution: still constitutional. This question is no longer a barrier to recognizing homosexual marriage. And obviously, polygamous sexual relationships aren’t outlawed, either.
The second question has to do with whether recognizing the relationship will create a legally useful set of rights and obligations between the parties of the relationship and between the relationship as a whole and third parties. Clearly, there are a host of difficulties here that attach to recognizing polygamy (which wife gets to specify the medical care received by an unconscious husband?) that do not attach to recognizing homosexual marriages. Only laws that institute a difference between rights and obligations of the husband and wife would be difficult to map onto a homosexual relationship, and there are very few of them. Even those few are archaic (such as the definition of rape in some states still being “nonconsensual sex with a woman other than the wife of the perpetrator”) and should probably be repealed.
The third question has to do with all the moral questions regarding the government’s underlying policy motives behind granting any benefits to members of a particular type of relationship. Views on this range from the libertarian “government should provide benefits to no type of marriage” to those who recognize the government’s interest in procuring societal benefits derived from encouraging long-term relationships. If this view acknowledges the benefit of non-traditional family units, it will likely support legal homosexual marriage. If it takes a more traditionalist view of family it will likely only support legal recognition of heterosexual marriage. The moral equation must also take into account the extent to which marriage is the basis for a civil right that cannot be procured in any other way.
A particular answer to the third question can also be used to support only recognizing heterosexual marriages, recognizing homosexual and heterosexual marriages, or recognizing heterosexual, homosexual, and polygamous marriages. But also remember that unless the answer to the second question supports the legal usefulness of the relationship, the third question is irrelevant since without that usefulness it can provide no benefits to anyone except the government saying “I approve of you.”
My own thoughts? Legally recognized homosexual marriages are probably going to happen and will probably be a good thing for society. Polygamy will never be truly legally useful nor beneficial to society.
quote:Obviously, something about them has to be justified-- otherwise there'd be no objection to them.
Justified to meet your moral approval? Well, yes. Justified to you in order tomake homosexual marriage legal? No. That ain't the way we work. A homosexual does not, legally, need to seek and obtain your moral approval of their lifestyle to be permitted access to a right allowed to everyone but their own tiny minority.
And by the way, marriage is a right, folks. It's a legal condition granted to every citizen in America once they reach a proper age. The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, and the money necessary to pay for a license. So don't anyone say it's not a right when it's allowed to every single citizen except for homosexuals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Not justified to me-- what do I matter?-- but justified to the public so that they can support homosexual marriages.
It's a necessary step in gaining recognition as a protected minority. Bypassing public justification will only get you resentment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A majority of public approval is not even a factor in whether or not a human right should be protected for an American citizen, Scott.
How long exactly should homosexuals wait until they're no longer second-class citizens under varying state laws, Scott? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty or a hundred?
Thankfully America didn't wait that long to finally recognize the full-citizenship status of African-Americans in America. You do remember there was a little *ahem* "resentment" of them when the Civil Rights Act was passed, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh said: So don't anyone say it's not a right when it's allowed to every single citizen except for homosexuals.
I agree that homosexual marriages should be legally recognized. However, it is a little specious to say that every single citizen except homosexuals are allowed to marry. Marriage, as is currently defined by law as a union between a man and a woman, is available to every single citizen, barring trivial exceptions such as incapacity.
As you said, “The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, and the money necessary to pay for a license.” You forgot “and a willing spouse-to-be of the opposite sex of at least the legally require consanguinity.” (I’d add “and neither party married to anyone else” but I don’t want to encourage the “polygamy is the same as homosexual marriage” crowd.
Homosexuals have exactly the same “right” to marry as anyone else – the right as defined is simply not appealing to them.
Should that be changed? Yes. Would it be unconstitutional not to change it? No.
You are literally correct. I should say "equivalent" right, not "identical" right then. But then men and women marry because they fall in love, or think they fall in love, by and large, and thus want to spend the rest of their lives together. For the government to say that only one type of love is legitimate is to define the other, and thus those who believe in it, as second-class citizens.
Denying it is unconstitutional because it denies them their basic freedom, their liberty, to spend their lives with the person of their choice under the umbrella of marriage.
The reason I find the argument you make-though you support permitting homosexual marriage-is that it says, "It's OK to fly flagrantly in the face of the spirit of the law, and all of our American ideals, but homosexuals have instead of the right to marry the partner of their choice the utterly useless-to them-right to marry a choice of partners they don't love." It's the kind of argument that lets people stay good and comfortable with making a minority a second-class group of citizens, with governing a nation based on their own narrow interpretation of their religion that doesn't even apply to the whole population.
It's akin to seperate but equal. An African-American family says, "I want to send my kids to the white school." Status quo says, "You can't do that, but we'll give you the same thing over here." It's the "same" right, but for one group of people-the status quo or heterosexuals-it's beneficial and solid, but for the other groupe of people-minorities and homosexuals-it's useless and insulting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thankfully America didn't wait that long to finally recognize the full-citizenship status of African-Americans in America. You do remember there was a little *ahem* "resentment" of them when the Civil Rights Act was passed, right?
It DID wait that long, Rakeesh.
The resentment that was created was simply not enough to disuade those in power, or those that put them in power, that the changes should not be made or should be retracted. In other words, the public was either FOR the changes, APATHETIC to the changes, or POWERLESS to stop the changes.
[ November 10, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So homosexuals should wait until some nebulous time in the future when there's still resentment, but not enough resentment to make trouble?
There were still lynching, night-ridings, and cross-burnings after 1969.
I don't know. I understand what you're saying, but to me it sounds like a formula too likely to be used indefinitely. It's a human right being denied. The majority of prejudiced and often bigoted people who want to keep homosexuals as sub-citizens be damned.
Edit: And your basis for denying a basic human right is still: the majority doesn't support complete human rights for this minority.
I’ll accept your characterization of homosexual marriage as an issue of “human rights.” Since we agree on the desired result and the underlying fundamental rationale of justice, I think we can safely continue to disagree on the underlying constitutionality of the distinction, since I doubt either of us wants to delve into case law to support our positions.
posted
I'll admit you'd probably win that sort of contest, Dagonee:) ---- Scott,
Why isn't it an issue of human rights? Why is marriage not a right in your eyes? That's my question. By saying it's not a right you've carefully sidestepped granting this universally-permitted (with a couple of requirements and exceptions) "privilege" to a small minority. What is your basis for saying it's not a right? And if it is a privilege, what is your legal basis for denying it to a minority in America?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith - Those of us in favor of allowing polygamy understand every point you make.
But I don't think they're "problems", merely decisions that need to be made. The only one that seems to require much thought is the divorce/alimony one. And in the last example, you seem to take it as a given that these families would for some reason all be on welfare.
And I think my head is going to explode if I hear the phrase "apples and oranges" again. The issue is whether or not the government has a right to dictate our love lives on the basis of a moral majority. Apples and apples.
I'm fairly sure everyone here is aware of the differences between monogamy and polygamy.
quote: 1. Inheritance benefits: Estates in traditional marriages devolve to the spouse in instances where a will has not been established. In polygamous relationships, is there an equal distribution or do all spouses have individual claims to the entirety of the estate?
That one's easy. Just pick one of those two. Flip a coin, maybe.
quote: 2. Divorce from a polygamous union: Does one spouse divorce one other or divorce all the spouses? Can you divorce one spouse, but remain a member of the family unit, choosing not to divorce any of the others? Is that spouse entitled to half of the entire holdings of the estate if they divorce? In a system with one husband and multiple wives, can he divorce the lot of them and then seek sole parental rights on all of the children? If the wives collectively divorce the husband, does he have to pay alimony to all of them (to end when ALL have been married again) and can he be liable for child support to each child? If a woman divorces from the group, can she be held liable for child support for all of the other children as a person who contributed to the overall benefit of the family?
These are worst case scenarios, and all seem to be solvable with a little math.
quote: 3. Tax liability: Does the husband get multiple tax benefits for children and marriage based on each marriage or a one-time situation. Can the earnings of each spouse be garnished to cover back taxes of the others? For the sale of real property, can state taxes (generally giving a one-time exemption on profits per married couple) be avoided multiple times by pairing each individual spousal relationship?
Give them the tax breaks of a monogamous couple. Yes, the earnings of all spouses should be able to be garnished. Give them the normal one-time examption per marriage. One, that is, because only one marriage takes place.
quote: 4. Tax haven harems. Could a man marry numerous wives who already had children in an effort to get tax write offs for each of the children and wives? Would families begin brokering off unwed mothers for this purpose? (Before you protest, think about how this happens in many societies for many reasons.)
Yes, tax breaks for children...until we start limiting the number of children one may have. No, no extra writeoffs for more wives.
quote: 5. Establishment of power of attorney. Is it done through a single, primary spouse or is it handled by committee?
Sounds like a decision for the members of the marriage. Why is that a problem?
quote: 6. If the father and mother of some children from a polygamous marriage die, do the children go to the other spouses, or would blood relatives have claim to the children. Now, how about the assignment of life insurance benefits/ social security benefits?
If a father and mother, divorced, of a child both die, does the child go to a step parent or a blood relative? I suppose we could let the courts decide, like they do now.
quote: 7. Social services: Can the entire family be liable for the poor child rearing practices of a single member? If the entire group is on Welfare and public assistance, would their circumstances make this a profitable way of living? Would the country be supporting a lifestyle financially?
Yes, a family should be responsible for child rearing.
And in the event that a family is on welfare...well, I think the country could actually get off paying less than they would had each member filed for welfare separately.
There. Five minutes. Let a few pros take a whack at it for a few hours, and I'm sure some good solutions would be found.
Doug - Do you not think that one group pushing to get laws changed will effect everyone in similar situations? I think a lot of precedents set in the process of legalizing homosexual marriage would overlap into other areas...like polygamy.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott - How willingly would you give up the special rights you've been given due to being married?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Five minutes thinking of solutions to your problems, not five minutes of consideration on the subject.
The solutions aren't important to me. They're out there somewhere, and it will apparently take someone who knows more than you or I about the subject to find them.
My concern is why we're using petty excuses like those as reasons to withhold equal rights.
Incidentally, I don't see why there are tax breaks for getting married, anyway. Is love not enough incentive?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. Flip a coin? This is a really serious matter and one that is part of the reason behind the need for legalization of homosexual unions. Currently, a homosexual life partner has NO rights as to inheritance, no matter how long they have been in a monogomous relationship... they can even lose jointly-held assets. You pass on this as something of feather-weight importance, but it is a necessity, especially in a day and age when homosexual couples can and do adopt children (or have them surrogately). The issue for polygamists is completely different, but once legalized becomes inherently much more complex, potentially bogging down estates in courts for years. Legalizing gay marriage makes this cut and dried for those involved, legalizing polygamy makes this a tar-filled legal mire. Simple, eh?
2. Worst case scenarios? Solve with a little math? Perhaps you should sit through a few sessions at your local divorce court proceedings. Welcome to the modern day, divorce is common and regular. Once again, divorce is more simple in cases of gay marriages, but diversely complex in cases of polygamy. You've never had the chance to see a real divorce attorney at work, have you? They go for the throat and they would love nothing more than having a dozen to go after in one single case. Tsk tsk tsk, math has nothing to do with divorce courts, nor does civility usually.
3. Are you assuming that one mass ceremony weds the entire polygamous group at one time. The polygamous families I've seen discussed bring wives in at all different times. Might I suggest you sit down with a tax accountant at some point and suggest to them legalization of polygamous marriages. Then bring up those ideas... be prepared to see their eyes light up at the possibilities. Once again, in the case of gay marriages, the laws do not have to be changed for tax status and there would be no new loopholes.
4. Actually Frisco, there is a dollar limit on the child credits per married couple and a limit on the number of children it applies to, per couple. Not a problem with gay marriages, even in cases of adoption. Now a man with 12 wives and 24 children... a whole different can of worms.
5. Never been through this either? Take a look at the situation in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Look at how complex that has become and that is a single spouse marriage. And let's take the one husband and 12 wives group again. The husband ends up like Terri Schiavo and 11 wives want to pull the plug and one doesn't... or maybe it's seven for and five against.
6. Tsk, tsk, tsk... to easy to dismiss here. Welcome to the real world of civil courts, Frisco. These battles get vicious at times in monogamous marriages. Try adding in multiple potential co-spouses who may have no blood ties, but have a legally binding marriage certificate. Very messy in the courts, especially if the children become a major deciding factor in inheritances and insurance payouts. Pass this off if you will, but this is a major factor in many such cases today.
7. Note the use of the word "if" in touching on the question of public assistance and Welfare. Once again, run this "wonderful world of polygamy" mindset by a Social Services worker.
Notice that none of these problems listed would be shared by gay marriages and polygamous marriages. You do the whole discussion a huge disservice by lumping them together.
What might be a quick intellectual exercise to you is something much more complex in the real world.
Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't add to the work of our courts and legal system, in fact, it reduces it. Many tragic situations of inheritance and power of attorney could be easily fixed if they were able to share the privileges found in traditional, legal marriage. The same could, in no way, be said for polygamists.
One decision rewrites one law and clears the air. The other requires an overhaul of the whole system and muddies the waters terribly.
Edit to add: Original post was deleted so as to give a more complete explaination. It does say the same thing in the beginning, though. Frisco, get some sleep...
posted
Frisco's sincere here and considered each item in your post. He's also laid back enough he probably won't take offense to the dismissive bits. That's pretty cool.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Katharina, he was pretty dismissive about what I had said. I do appreciate him addressing each one, but this is pretty serious stuff.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if it came off as if I were trying to belittle the issues. They're all good things to consider when trying to decide how to mit polygamy into society.
But what I'm getting from your posts it that we shouldn't give polygamists equal rights because:
A: Potential for abuse. Besides the fact that we're using negative stereotypes that may or may not perpetuate themselves if we're to legalize, legitimize, and tolerate a new form of relationship, I'm still not a big fan of punishment in anticipation of a crime.
B: It's complicated. Are we lazy? Opposed to change? Unwilling to endure a period of turmoil, even one affecting such a small percentage of the population as this, for the sake of letting letting these people pursue happpiness?
I just think that I see polygamy as something that has potential to do good (though I got a chuckle out of your using a man with twelve wives as your example). I'd love to see a world in which a child could grow up with three loving fathers and three loving mothers and eleven siblings as friends. Granted, this would be a rarity for a long time to come...but as long as it's illegal, it's going nowhere.
I guess I should turn my badge and gun of cynicism back over for this.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I was dismissive at all with your points, Sopwith, it's because we're arguing different arguments.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I have friends who are gay and friends involved in a polygamous marriage.
My sister-in-law couldn't get married and was left holding the bag when her long-time life partner walked on her. She was left paying off a lease, loans and bills that could have and should have been equitably divided should they have been able to be married, as they had wanted to do years before.
The polygamous friends, well, one is trying to get out of the situation and she's having to deal with a seriously sticky situation. It's not pretty and if it were legal and headed to court, it would get even worse.
Personal experience with these two types of relationships has left me with decided opinions on them.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If I understand you correctly, Doug, you are for gay marriage and polygamy both, and therefore our interests are aligned.
While i am for both gay marriage and polgamy, i also think it is a change our country shouldn't take lightly. This change will radicaly redefine marriage in the US, and thus the world. Plus, this will affect how the world acts towards the US; and i don't mean those pinheads in Europe.
quote: Your insinuation that homosexual rights activists are simply serving their own jealous "special interests" (as if it was wrong to fight for one's own personal special interest) is silly and insulting.
No, it isn't wrong to fight for your own special intrest. But don't tell me you are fighting for freedom for all people and then stop when you get what you want.
Karl:
quote: Now maybe I'm mistaking hyperbole for a serious contention, but on this thread "Everybody under the sun" has been said to include not just polygamous relationships, but also incestuous, and inter-species relationships. I do not feel that it is hypocritical of me to say for instance that I think gays should be allowed to marry but that you shouldn't be allowed to marry your dog.
When i say "everbody under the sun" i only mean consenting adults. Beastiality and pediphelia are a diffrent subject. But i don't see why incestuous marriages should be banned. The same taboo that block them were the same types of taboo that block gay marriage.
Rakeesh:
quote: The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, and the money necessary to pay for a license.
Should edit it to: The only requirements to exercise this right are the correct age, sometimes some blood testing, no direct relation, not the same sex and the money necessary to pay for a license.
A gay man can still marry a gay womam, technicaly.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:what is your legal basis for denying it to a minority in America?
I define marriage as a legal bond between a man and a woman.
Pretty definitive. I understand that most states do not have this strict definition of marriage-- however, most states also do not allow homosexual marriages because there is an implicit societal understanding that a legal marriage, in American society, is between a man and a woman.
As far as marriage rights go. . . I'd be willing to give up none of them. Is there a reason I should?
Or was that a ploy to 'help' me feel empathy?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, it isn't wrong to fight for your own special intrest. But don't tell me you are fighting for freedom for all people and then stop when you get what you want.
So are you just going to ignore my example of the Revolutionary War? I suppose you'll teach your kids that our country's founders weren't really patriots because they didn't fight for freedom for all people, just white ones? I'm sorry, Doug, but I fail to see your purpose in trying to show hypocrisy when there is none. Sure, maybe I'm selfish for wanting to address the fact that my rights are being infringed.
But the thing is, Doug, if my argument over my rights should win the day, it would be a moral victory for polygamy too, since its argument is so similar. I'd argue that the only way polygamy ever has a chance in this country is if homosexual rights become recognized first. Again, I find this statement obnoxiously insulting, because your sentiments are very clear:
quote:i won't support some special intrest group fighting for "freedom" when they are just trying to help only themselves.
*
You either support freedom for all or special intrest for yourself; don't pretend it is one when it is for the other.
*
No, it isn't wrong to fight for your own special intrest. But don't tell me you are fighting for freedom for all people and then stop when you get what you want.
With virtually everyone in the thread saying that they support polygamy rights, I don't see the reason for your huge hang up here.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
