Well, that the harm done might be subjective depending on the audience. But you're the first person to comprehend the larger point. I'm not necessarily arguing against gay marriage. Personally I have no preference either way, at all. I dont think it's morally wrong to allow it and I dont think it's a civil rights issue to deny if if it's applied narrowly without concern for the principle of other types of marriage. The thing I'm trying to do is point out the hypocrisy and lack of moral ground on the part of gay activists if they pursue their own agenda at the cost of the larger principle and without concern for other groups that might be similarly "discriminated" against applying the same standards as they do for gay marriage. Not only can you find similar differences, all you have to do is scroll up! Gay posters have been doing it all thread. When they're being denied they can think of a million reasons why it's discrimination. Then they can turn around and think of a million reasons to put up barriers between themselves and other forms of marriage their own personal code finds abhorrent like child marriage or gay marriage. My point is, if you can find reasons why as a gay person you can logically see reasons not to allow polygamy or w/e then whether you personally agree or not, how can you not logically understand how a straight person might similarly be able to manufacture reasons to not allow gay marriage. That's fine. There is no right or wrong answer. The reasons why to me interracial marriage is less analogous is because the primary reason why miscegenation laws were sustainable for hundreds of years were economically driven. After the slaves were free and the economic imperative was gone, eventually those laws broke down (even though the social imperatives remained). Ergo unlike gay marriage the primary obstacle was economic not moral. Also in the case of miscegenation, unlike gay marriage the primary thrust was not around the legal institution of marriage (although it was part of it) but simply that blacks and whites should not mingle. Gay marriage is not about discriminating against the rights of men to have sex with other men, but about the institution of marriage. Just like polygamy isn't about the right of 1 dude to be with 2 women (in fact society even enforces some of those out-of-marriage polygamous bonds with child support etc) but about the legal protection of marriage. So, although it's a side argument, a case can be made that polygamy is closer to gay marriage. There's no right or wrong in any of this, people can disagree. Of course, for gay activists interracial marriage is a much more politically useful comparison despite other merits because it's a more palatable point of reference for the general public with a low level of interest in the gay marriage issue... no one is going to call you a bigot if you say polygamy is wrong, for example.
I don't think larger groups are being discriminated against. I don't think other groups are being discriminated against. Which posters who posted in this thread do you believe are gay? Because there are actual reasons against child marriage and the like, doesn't mean they are manufactured. I think people can put forward whatever reasons they want to deny gay marriage, and we should look at those reasons based on their merit. Yes, and when Blacks were allowed to be segregated from schools, it wasn't that they weren't being allowed to get an education, just about protecting the so-called "educational environment" that already existed. That didn't make it right, and the supreme court found that "separate but equal" wasn't equal at all. Again, for reasons I listed above, I don't believe Polygamy is a valid comparison. The law is applied equally to them. It's fine to disagree, but it doesn't make either of us hypocritical.
I didn't miss it. There is simply no reason on principle how this is different from any other sort of marriage. If a man has 2 common law wives, are they both afforded legal protection and property rights in the case of dissolution? If not, is that not discrimination? How about if hypothetically 2 kids who were living together underage but who pay the mortage/rent together then split up after a year? Dude I bought that Xbox and she took it. DISCRIMINATION Same thing about the classic case where the gay guy cant visit his dying AIDS partner in the hospital... in an analogous case where is the protection for the 2nd common law wife at the deathbed? The only distinction is that you have outrage because you've already defined the gay couple as a "marriage" in your mind therefore the discrimination. Access and legal rights deprived are obviously bigotry depriving rights to a legitimate spouse. Whereas it would be preposterous to say a that second wife is a legal spouse and of course then it's a different case. It's more work let's just not allow it. Actually allowing gay marriage is more work as well let's not allow it. Seriously... I think the points you make about it raising a lot of questions is legitimate. But it's not totally disparate from questions family courts deal with now, in the case of the dissolution of blended families. The question of whether a non-biological parent can be have custody for example, is one that's been established. In terms of the economics of support and alimony, in traditional societies, polygamy has been a marriage between a man and multiple women, not between multiple women themselves so that question also has precedent. I'm not a bigot though, so of course I dont preclude the idea of women marrying women or a dude marrying 5 other dudes and living in a house together and solving mysteries on the weekeneds or whatever they choose to do. As you say, the various different arrangements could indeed prove thorny for the courts. Obviously this is fine, and it's what we have courts for... as long as we're consistent on applying the principle of people being able to marry other people universally, or denying that right universally instead of on political power. I'm curious, however why you think the difficulty of establishing new laws in any was impacts the PRINCIPLE of rights that people do or do not have?
Honestly? I think every single one of the reasons people have against other types of marriage are "actual reasons." That's why right now the US and most countries dont allow those types of marriage. I hope that I didn't give the impression that I though they were "manufactured" on the contrary what I've been posting is that different people in good faith can have very different opinions on what is and what is not legitimate based on their own agendas. Because we disagree doesn't mean someone else's rationale is somehow manufactured. However, it is very easy to let one's biases get the best of you and attach overwhelming importance to the points that favor your position and dismiss the ones that dont which was the point I was making in that snippet you referred to. Personally I find the idea of going through the list and "deciding based on merits" which are supposedly "actual reasons" and which are "manufactured" as distasteful because it's not my job (or your job) to decide for others what is and what is not legitimate. If ppl are geniunely concerned about the principle, then they should be dedicated to applying it as a right even in applications that they personally might not support. I understand what you're saying and I also understand how frankly absurd even discussing polygamy might seem to some people. But I do think it's hypocritical both to 1)demand rights based on a principle then deny those rights to another 2)draw distinctions, then fail to understand when others similarly draw distinctions
Not really since whether hetero sexual or homosexual we are only talking about a two party marriage. The problem with saying the courts can figure it out is that there is no legal precedent in the US regarding a plural marriage and the distrubution of rights. If we follow other societies we run into the problem that often those have ranked marriages and already discriminate based on gender. I've stated earlier that I personally would allow polygamy but again that doesn't mean that we suddenly to having a workable set of laws regarding the dsitrubution of rights and responsibilities in a plural marriage. That is a key difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Our marriage laws at the moment involve two people and the laws are technically gender neutral as both parties are supposed to have the same rights. Its not difficult to say then that marriage should be gender neutral.
You are right. They are actual reasons. But not all reasons are legitimate. I should have chosen a different word. I gave the example of an actual reason not to integrate schools. The supreme court made the ruling. You are right it isn't our job to decide what is and isn't legitimate, but in progressing towards enlightenment we ought to able to discern for ourselves when reasons aren't legitimate, and speak out against those that are unjust. Denying rights to one group of people merely because of sexual preference is as unjust as denying them because of race. The history may be different, but the principle remains. To act like it isn't our job to decide prejudice and bigotry is a bad thing doesn't excuse tolerating such bigotry and prejudice. 1. The principle I'm basing my demands of rights regarding to gay marriage is that one group of partners is allowed to have the rights and another group of partners aren't allowed to. It isn't simply that everyone should have the right to marry. It's more that one group gets it, and a group who all meet the same criteria except a different sexual preference is by definition prejudiced against those people. 2. I understand that others draw distinctions, but because you allow one distinction doesn't meant that all distinctions are just. To act like all distinctions are equal would set all civil rights back centuries. What you are saying is the same as saying that "because we finally allowed blacks the right to vote, we must also allow children the right to vote." After all if rights are extended to one group how can you argue against them being extended to every group. The truth is that different reasons for extending or denying rights have various levels of legitimacy. Giving every reason equal validity is a step backward from enlightenment.
If people chose to have ranked marriages that's their business. Again it's not our job to decide someone is invalid because they choose to marry 3 women (or 3 men) and rank them as part of the legal agreement or if they all agree to be equal. The principle remains that people have the right to enter whatever marriage agreement they see fit. You still haven't made a cogent argument that even in the case that laws need to be reworked (as they will be for any new type of marriage) how that impacts the principle of the right to get married. It seems that sorting out this sort of thing is precisely the type of work we have judges for in the first place... at least IMO it's better work than upturning Consitutional amendments or legislating from the bench social issues. Our marriage laws at the moment involve a man and woman and the laws are technically gender neutral in theory (although in practice, in the case of custody, parental rights and support there is often a bias etc). Again this is a specious and seemingly random distinction between gay marriage and polygamy. Why do judgments on a polygamous marriage have to be non-gender neutral? You're still dealing with individuals with equal rights. It's like saying a 2 person business partnership is one thing in terms of equal rights for the partners yet adding a 3rd partner all of makes it impossible to consider the rights of all involved? Whether it's a man and 2 women, or 3 women in a polygamous relationship the reasonable outcome at dissolution in terms of support is that the one with the highest income would contribute to the other 2... and that the property would be split equally. I dont see how this is different than a 2 person marriage where the wife might happen to be the breadwinner and pay alimony to the stay at home dad.
Concurrent to the civil rights movement, we did have a Constitutional Amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. In some places age of consent is 16, some 18, some even 14. You're considered an adult at 18 when it comes to dying in Iraq (and drinking on military bases) but you're only adult at 21 when it comes to drinking at the bar down the street. So as crazy as it sounds, none of that is really black and white, depending on social context, political influence, history, and social mores of each individual state and country. But when it comes to a seminal right like marriage it's either universal or it's not. Specious distinctions only serve to weaken the moral argument (even as it might solidify the purely political tact). I dont expect you to necessarily agree that polygamy is the same as same sex marriage but can you at least admit to yourself that different people could legitimately have different thresholds and the person who disagrees with gay marriage isn't necessarily evil or wrong from his own perspective... just it would be unfair to say that any gay person who disagrees with polygamy is evil or wrong?
That's all true, but those are issues that can be worked around, and not inherent problems with the institution of polygamous marriage itself. You wouldn't say, no you can't get married because it will be difficult to figure out how whether you will have to pay alimony if you get divorced.
Hmmmm....how come the only ones advocating polygamy, are the ones against gay marriage? The babbling of lunatics.
Uhh... I haven't searched back through the whole thread, but I can think of three people who have said they would be ok with polygamy and I believe all three are in favor of gay marriage. Are you sure you're understanding people's positions correctly?
The anti-gay marriage folks brought polygamy into the discussion. The absurd contention that if gay marriage was OK, then it follows polygamy is OK too. You argue youself, in the post prior to mine, how the inherent problems of polygamy can be worked out. Why? The two issues are NOT connected. I've yet to hear someone advocating gay marriage advocate polygamous unions unless in some abstract way when goaded to do so by a 'defender of the pure.' I've seen lots from the anti-gay marriage folks on how gay marriage and polygamy are the same. I do thank you for keeping the bestiality and incest comparisons to a minimum.
I agree with you that a valid discussion of the merits of gay marriage can be had without discussing polygamy, and that it is generally opponents of gay marriage who bring polygamy into the discussion. But that doesn't mean you can just dismiss their argument. The two issues are connected, just as the issue of inter-racial marriage is connected to gay marriage and provides fitting analogies. An argument is made for gay marriage that restricting marriage to people of opposite genders is wrong because it prevents same gender couples from having the same benefits. Bringing up polygamy is a perfectly acceptable response to that argument because it is another example of restricting marriage and preventing multiple partner unions from having the same benefits. The question is why it is wrong to prevent gay partners from receiving the benefits but (presumably) not wrong to prevent multiple partners from receiving benefits. You can't just dismiss that question if you want to honestly discuss and debate the issue. I understand that in many cases, analogies to other types of "unions" like bestiality and incest are used by opponents of gay marriage, and such analogies are both offensive and baseless. But that doesn't mean that every analogy is baseless. I personally don't think the polygamy analogy is offensive, either, so it's acceptable to discuss the merits of that claim.
As far as the age differences I understand different circumstances have different appropriate ages. However, that still doesn't mean that all reasoning in all circumstances are equally valid. I agree that opponents of same sex marriage believe they have valid reasons. However, any reason that discriminates for factors such as sexual preference is bigotry, and those reasons are therefore not valid.
Oh what the hell. I'll play. Then do it. You absolutely can, and should, dismiss that question if you want to honestly discuss the issue. Polygamy has its own set of issues -- well beyond the procedural ones mentioned here. It has often been connected with abuse and exploitation (google the Utah sects if you doubt this). But, primarily -- there is no large movement fighting on its behalf. Somehow. proponents of gay marriage have to differentiate themselves from a practice that they don't engage in, don't advocate, and that no one else is advocating for. Why? Let the polygamists fight their own battles (if they even want to). Proponents for gay marriage have made their case by citing issues regarding visitation, family, succession, dignity, taxation, property and other IMO valid positions. They've countered the procreation argument by noting hetero couples are not required to have kids, and many do not, or cannot, yet still are afforded the benefits of marriage (and that many gay couples DO have kids). They've countered the religious argument by noting that religious adherence is not a prerequisite for marriage. You can explicitly reject religion, yet still get married. And now they're supposed to demonstrate that they're different from polygamists? Again...why? How is it possibly relevant? If people in favour of polygamist unions want to make their case -- let them. On their own merits. The only possible reason to bring polygamy into this is to create the illusion that by accepting gay marriage, you've somehow denigrated the term to such an extent that any possible union must now be considered a marriage. That simply isn't true. And isn't honest.
We agree.I'm not saying there should not be any protections or rights just that the word "marriage" has alway been a Man an Woman .
What you're advocating is dismissing a valid argument because you don't think it's valid without providing any reasoning or explanation. Someone taking the opposing viewpoint uses an analogy to make a point. You are asking me to just ignore their point because you don't like their analogy. You see, that wasn't so hard, was it? You addressed the claim clearly and honestly, just as I was trying to do. Sorry, I just disagree. I will acknowledge that many people making that claim likely follow that line of thinking, that doesn't mean the claim in an of itself is invalid. I try to argue on the merits of an argument, not the motivations of the arguer. To me, that makes for a much more honest discussion because you can never really know the intentions of the other person and in my experience we often assume evil and dishonest intentions when they aren't actually present. Besides, if you refuse to counter the arguments against gay marriage that aren't valid, then you're not going to have much of a discussion and opponents will never hear why you don't follow their logic. Few if any of the arguments against allowing gay marriage are logical or reasonable in my opinion. I'm not going to ignore all of them just because I think they are based on homophobia or ignorance.
I don't buy this argument. If two heterosexual males were room mates for 10 years and they ended it, one of them can not take everything.
uolj: I thought the bulk of my post was explaining why the polygamous discussion was disingenuous -- both in intent and content. I didn't dismiss it without reason, or refuse to discuss it. If certain arguments against gay marriage are illogical, unreasonable or based in homophobia or ignorance, I see no problem in labelling them as such, with explanation if necessary, and no merit in discussing them as if they are not.
