Will Gay Marraige Set a Precedent For Polygamy?

As i said previously in this thread, our gov't legalized Gay Marriage and yet just last week, announced they would be fully charging the polygamists in BC.

 

On what grounds does Canada consider consenting adults in love illegal to marry if they passed gay marraige?

 

They seem like the same question to me, namely, should the government have the authority to determine which consenting adults can and cannot enter into relationships and contracts of their own choosing? Do you have some "legally viable reason" as to why polygamists shouldn't be allowed to enter into unions?

 

On what grounds does marriage currently exist, and on what grounds does it exclude polygamy? The answer is likely the same.

 

Look, if you're a closet polygamist you should by all means stand tall and proud and see what you can do to enact some changes. More power to you. But being all passive aggressive throwing feelers out here isn't going to result in any meaningful change for you. You need to come out and show people you're not a freak.

This is a good day for you. I can feel it.

 

No. ---

 

Yes. ---

 

The question itself is the same, but determining if there's good reason for the government to block one, the other, or both are still different. If there's no good reason for the government to be blocking either, then certainly both should be legalized... but legalizing one doesn't necessarily mean the other will follow.

I have no issue with them entering unions, but the structure of the union itself and the rights & responsibilities would have to be reevaluated to accomodate a the complexities and imbalances of having more than 2 in the party. Beyond that, I can't really speak for any other reasons why people feel the need to block polygamy provided all the persons involved consent. People may very well feel there are other reasons, but whatever the reasons may be, those are still questions specifically about polygamy. Neither those questions, nor the logistics involved in legalizing polygamy have anything to do with same-sex couples... which may have their own issues, however different.

 

Will Gay Marraige Set a Precedent For Polygamy?

Well, polygamy already exists, so I'd say hetero marriage already set that precedent.

OOPS!

 

Polygamy isn't legal in the US, yet. It will be if the precident is set by gay marriage. You can't arbitrarily discriminate which sexual practice "in love" can marry and which can't.

 

I think this one point more than any others the Justices will mull over. I wonder what the gay-advocate lawyers have cooked up to explain this away? The Justices will surely ask them about it; whether or not they approve of polygamists and other adult-consenting relationships marrying? I saw a debate at a university, Harvard if memory serves, about gay marriage not long back with a gay-advocate lawyer and a DOMA advocate. When this polygamy question came up, the gay-advocate started fidgeting very nervously and started chattering like an auctioneer manically trying tangents to make the question go away. It was really odd. He was sweating and squirming in his chair and babbling hyperactively. I kept waiting for him to jump straight up in the air and accuse "BIGOT!" "HOMOPHOBE!!" of the moderator.

 

Equality is achieved when an adult couple is allowed to enter into a domestic contract if they so decide, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or other irrelevant factors.

Polyandry, polygamy, bestiality, and pederasty are entirely different arrangements from such adult partnerships whose merits can be promoted by those who choose to advocate for them.

If polyandry were even legalized, equality would require that polygamy be as well, but neither are currently under serious consideration. They are only interjected by those who are opposed to the end of gender discrimination in marriage but are unable to articulate an honest, intelligent argument for their resistance to equality.

 

Nope. Why not three or more adults? Why only couples? Are law firms limited to two partners? Why are multiple consensual domestic contracts prohibited?

No, that's just false. Polyandry and polygyny are just as much consensual relationships between adults as monogamous heterosexual marriage. Trying to equate them with bestiality and pederasty is fallacious, absurd, dishonest and disgraceful.

Yes, they are. A Canadian court was recently asked for a ruling on the constitutionality of the law prohibiting polygamy. It ruled that the law was constitutional, but the reasons given look pretty shaky. Other advanced countries' courts have also been considering the question, and IMO it is only a matter of time before major advanced countries begin to recognize plural marriage. Some already recognize plural marriages undertaken in countries where it is legal.

Garbage. It is just a plain fact that the great majority of all societies studied by anthropologists have permitted plural marriage, but until a few decades ago, none had ever legally recognized same-sex marriage. The idea that same-sex marriage is more valid than plural marriage is absurd.

I guess you missed the irony of you objecting to discussion of plural marriage in the same terms as same-sex marriage, when you just tried to equate plural marriage with bestiality and pederasty.

 

Well then polygamy should already be legal in several states.

But it isn't.

That would be because your understanding of the law is even more flawed than your understanding of homosexuality.

 

Considering that the issue of polygamy is not before the court, I rather suspect the Justices won't ask that.

 

Countries where polygamy is legal don't seem to have any difficulty doing so.

Shows like "Big Love" are paving the way for popular and then legal recognition of plural marriage. Maybe it's a few decades down the road, but it's coming. As it should.

 

With any luck, the case will go to the Supreme Court of Canada, and BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Bauman's fallacious, absurd, and blatantly dishonest ruling on its constitutionality will be struck down.

 

Problem is that in doing so you assume/make marriage about procreation. Beyond the complexities like gay incest, you have a fundamental problem: is marriage about sex?

I mean, do you really think that gays in Texas don't boink because they can't get a marriage certificate?

 

Governments often are unfair. During the 70s many politicians, like Nixon, wanted abortion legal, but only for minorities.

 

same sex marriage will of course not pave the way for polygamy

 

You have finally said something I agree with.

Actually, so far all I've heard is a collective "one thing has nothing to do with the other, but aside from the logistical challenges, I don't really care of a poly group wants to wed".

You can continue to rant and rave and start 3 threads a day on the same topic and you won't change a thing. Pandora's Box is already open, and it will never close again. Sorry.

 

not a single person in the court, be they lawyers or the justices, are even going to mention polygamy. it is not an issue before the court. DOMA and prop 8 are.

 

As I averred, if you want to extend domestic contracts beyond couples, you are free to advocate for such arrangements.

Equality, as exists in several states and is to be considered by the Supreme Court, only involves couples. For couples to be treated equally does not require the interjection of such red herrings any more that the rhubric that "All men are created equal" be extended to include sheep, swine and other assorted horses of a different colour.

Your gambit is an intellectually deficient one, but can you cite with any real examples how you or others have been harmed in the states where equality for married couples has become commonplace?



.

 

LOL. Some of the people in this thread are hilarious.

"We demand equality!....for us....those other people are a separate issue. They're not with us so they can go pound sand..."

Equality my eye. Looks more like special privileges to me.

 

Nor does the desperate, bogus slippery slope scare tactic find a basis in logic or reality:

July 20, 2005, Canada legalized marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Nov. 23, 2011: British Columbia’s highest court ruled that Canada’s 121-year-old criminal law banning polygamy is constitutional.

Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia and three Native American tribes, as well as Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden, have all ended gender discrimination for couples wishing to wed.

Not one has legalized multiple-parter unions, either heterosexual or homosexual. Not one.