What is the Scientific reason to be against any of these types relationships? Isn't that 'the standard' now? Rocket River
No, it's not the standard. Don't confuse with what science tell you vs society or personal choice. Consent isn't a science standard. It's basic moral of not forcing someone. Love isn't a science standard. It's a personal choice, however delusional or not. Knowing science give you more information, nothing else. What you do with that is up to you. Just because society have progressed away from not knowing and accepting things on faith, doesn't mean value, moral are thrown out of the windows. In fact, values and morals are enhanced with a more correct and realistic view of nature.
I don't see any reason to deny a marriage license to polygamists other than the fact that the legal structures aren't really set up to handle it. Nor do I see what the rationale is to deny licenses for incestuous relationships. Both of these should probably be granted.
Repped...As the lines of morality blur, society tries to adjust according to what is convenient...This is the fear that the dissident judges had; but liberals refer it to as bigotry...just because it doesnt jive with society's "new fad" For liberals, disagree with them...and its bigotry. If they used the same rational argument(14th amendment) to justify SSM, there is zero reason to deny any consenting adult what they deem as "normal" marriage rights (ie. the right to marry more than one person, right to marry a family member etc...)
Polygamy is legal in a bunch of countries. Same sex marriage is legal in a bunch of countries. Hell, you could cry bigotry for banning polygamy. Even despite its ban, polygamy still exists in the Mountain states. The issue is polygamy is just another a disguise for polygyny, and it is A (male) loves B, C, and D (females), rather than ABCD loving each other equally and independently which would be necessary for promotion of the social well being of all said participants.
I don't think it is all convenient to grant marriage license to new type of marriage. That's open up a box of so many society things to work through with school, child care, child support, all of that... convenient isn't why society want something dude. If that's the argument against SSM, that's just silly. There is real potential known harm done to children and society over time in some of the case you mentioned. I think that's likely a valid society reason to not grant incestuous marriage for example. But poly-whatever isn't an issue for me.
It's inconvenient to be gay in a country where certain people want to deny you all of the rights they enjoy because they've always denied those rights. Yes, that's called bigotry. Since no one enjoys the right of polygamy then the 14th amendment doesn't apply. That's pretty straight forward.
This is an Assumption and honestly if everyone is consenting . . .. according the common rules of the day . . .. how is that any of your business? The difference in GAY/New MARRIAGE and TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is a change of about 3 words Traditional Marriage: Union between A Man and A Woman [Consent implied] New Marriage: Union between Two Consenting Adults Poly Marriage: Union between Consenting Adults Remove 1 word and Boom . . . polygamy Rocket River
Well, you're really not infringing on anybody's rights if you don't recognize polygamy. Everyone is treated equally- you can marry one person. Plus, there's a biological basis for homosexuality but there isn't for polygamy.
It's not an assumption. "Polygyny has flourished everywhere except in Christian Europe and North America, and it brings advantages to the wives as well as the husband. This is particularly true for the senior wife, who often has authority over the others. It remains popular in places even when it is not economically advantageous, and it has mech* anisms for dealing with family conflict." - B.B. Ingoldsby and S.D. Smith Families in Global and Multicultural Perspective (2006). The polygamy family unit is inherently unequal. "Stephens (1963) suggests that monogamy as a cultural preference gained preeminence in modern societies because the early Catholic fathers outlawed polygyny. Their general repugnance for seXual pleasure resulted in an ideologically based marital structure now considered normaL Monogamy's foundation is stronger than that, of course. One spouse at a time best fits the even sex ratio and the economic structure of the non-family-based, consumer-oriented society in which most of us presently live. It also provides for the deeper psychological intimacy now widely valued in marriage and implies greater equal* ity between the sexes than do some of the plural marriage forms."
Humm.. not so sure about that. Lou William strongly disagree. Our innate desire for spreading genes also disagree. Probably more true that there is less of a biological basis for honoring one.
Well, everyone saw it coming. But the discourse was all around what polygamy meant for gay marriage, not what gay marriage meant for polygamy. It was all fear mongering vs false assurances. Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, let's sort out the rest of it honestly. Right now, I'm just sorting through looking for an argument against polygamous marriage that holds some water. That's semantics, essentially. Defenders of traditional marriage said everyone enjoys the same right -- to marry someone of the opposite sex. The 14th amendment applied anyway. I don't see how polygamy is different. The biological basis is actually pretty obvious, I think. There's a lot of this argument going around. And I know it's a joke and all, but it's a half-joke that is really meant to just dodge the question. The truth is if it was legal, there would be people doing it. Same with incestuous marriages. The best argument I've seen is the potential damage to children, which txtony alluded to. Parent-child incest marriages, for example, or the forced marriages of the fundamentalist LDS church. Those do look like fertile ground for exploitation. But, you can get exploitative marriages in current homosexual and heterosexual relationships now. That's not really the basis to put an outright ban on it. You could, for example, beef up age requirements. You could outlaw parent-child marriages but allow sibling marriages. It's the best argument I've seen, but I don't really think it's good enough. I won't be advocating. I like it this way with polygamy and incest illegal. When my daughters are looking for a husband, I don't want them to have to deal with assholes who want to collect a bunch of wives. But, I don't see the rationale.
Great points all of them and my first post was a joke .But I would really like to see more of your argument against polygamous marriage.
Polygamy isn't a right, for anyone. Just like marrying a lamp post isn't a right for anyone. No one is being denied the right to polygamy based on a protected class. It's vastly different.
That's basically what you said in the post I responded to. I'm not understanding better the second time around. To take a different tack, we generally in the States try to maximize our personal liberties at least insofar as we can do so without hurting others and where there is no prevailing interest of the state. So, forget the 14th amendment for a moment. Why do we deny ourselves the right to have multiple spouses? I'm not asking how it is same or different from gay marriage. I'm asking what's the rationale?
I'm cool with it, as long at it's all consensual among the wives and the family. They should be able to live their lives how they choose.
The only reason polygamy isn't comparable to same-sex marriage is because the current law isn't set up for it. Same-sex couples argue that current law recognizes a relationship between two people for the purposes of taxes, health care, and survivorship and is as easily applied to same-sex couples as mixed-sex couples. More than two is a state outside existing law and complicates the relationship that has been defined through extensive legal precedent. Polygamy probably should be legal but it's just not practical that governments will exert the effort to make law and refine law to do it unless it becomes the popular will of the people to do it or the Unconstitutionality of denying it is decided by the Supreme Court. It would take millions of man hours of lobbying, legislation and adjudication to bring it about. And it would take a strong advocacy that just isn't there to sustain that.
