Gay Marriage and Polygamy

I was refering to the parts of this thread where there are said to be adultery laws in the U.S.

 

If you're talking about Christian marriage, then this is technically true.

Nonsense.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

You see, your premise was technically correct, but your conclusion was way off. Christian marriage is a contract between man, wife, and God. They are "one flesh" consecrated in the eyes of God and God alone. No promise is made to the state or a nominal society.

No more ridiculous than your fabricated definition of marriage.

 

I know, I know, I'm just joking around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States_2

Michigan seems pretty screwed up.

 

I was referring to the parts of this thread where there are said to be adultery laws in the U.S.

 

Yes, but you're a libertarian, right? My post was mostly aimed at progressive "liberals" who like to claim a moral high-ground when it comes to social issues like this. The only problem is that they are very selective when it comes to pushing those issues.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this. There is the issue of competing rights, i.e., the increased likelihood that a child will be born with genetic abnormalities. I do not believe that people should be given carte blanche to treat the unborn like a parasite.

 

I was a liberal once-upon-a-time, and I supported the same social issues I do now. I guess I'm pre-disposed to libertarianism, however, because I cried B.S. at the first Keynesian argument I read, and switched sides immediately. Perhaps my quest for complete internal consistency predisposes me to supporting all forms of consensual affiliation.

 

God's desk...

 

This is a good point. However, I think the effect of incest would be negligible anyway. People are not programmed to pursue their relatives and siblings, and if they did there is strong social stigma attached to that course of action. Thus, allowing for incestuous marriages would likely not result in many of them, and the net number of babies that result from such relationships would be unaffected.

 

Consistency is a hallmark of libertarianism. That's why no one can stand us...

 

This is a valid argument from a pragmatic standpoint, but it does not speak to the moral conundrum underlying incestuous relationships, i.e., can people subject unborn humans to whatever treatment they please? For instance, can a woman continually ingest heroin while pregnant? To me, this is tantamount to a chemical assault on the unborn. You wouldn't let her inject heroin into the baby's bloodstream after it was born, so why should it be any different when the baby is developing in the womb? In parallel, individuals who are engaging in an incestuous relationship are significantly increasing the odds that their child will be born with genetic defects and abnormalities, which, to me, is unfair to the baby.

 

There is definitely merit to this case. However, it seems to be the same line of reasoning that eugenicists would pursue in regards to perceived genetic deficiencies. No one should be allowed to chemically assault a child through heroin injection-- however, genetic issues are not as certain to have a negative effect. We allow people with late-onset genetic disorders to marry and to reproduce, do we not? This issue is far from settled for me, but the arguments seem to pull me towards allowing such marriages.

 

That's why I haven't taken a position. Like you said, it's quite complicated.

 

I'm not familiar with a society that worked that way. I'd be curious if you find one.

 

We have examples of societies that have multiple religious beliefs and are able to remain somewhat harmonious (although outside of the West, they are very much in the minority) but I am at a loss for an example of one that has anything like equal rights for women and also has a polygamy.

I did see most of the first season of Sister Wives but I certainly wouldn't base a sociological opinion on a heavily edited TV show. I imagine a sociological study of that same family might read very differently than the point of view the show is trying to present.

My advice? Don't base your opinions on phony "reality" TV.

 

Many PEOPLE, not just Liberals, defend allowing gay marriage because it is exactly analogous to heterosexual marriage.

There is NO scientific or rational reason to ban two people of WHATEVER sex joining inn the usual two-person marriage other than religious beliefs or simple bigotry based on "the way things have been"!

All these other forms of legal relationships MAY be just fine, but they are truly a change in the fundamental legal structure of marriage, and will require further laws and modifications to accomplish.

Group marriage of whatever form (I know personally know long-term marriages with one woman and several men, BTW, it works really well for them!) is simply another and DIFFERENT issue our society should address on its own merits.

Same sex marriage of TWO people requires NO changes, and makes no legal or societal sense to ban in a society that embraces the values of personal freedom! If it offends someone's personal feelings or religion, I highly suggest they simply do not get gay-married.

 

So it is merely the inconvenience of allowing free association that inhibits you from supporting it?

 

You're assuming with no evidence that polygamy and women's rights are somehow causally linked.

Just because something is edited does not mean it isn't an accurate representation of reality. The family is simply living their lives and letting the cameras follow them around, and they are a genuinely nice and stable family. No amount of creative editing can make an unstable and unloving family look like a stable and loving one.

 

IF you mean "inhibits me from supporting polygamous and other marriage", where did I say I didn't support those things?

I am simply saying new and alternative forms of marriage are a different argument to make than stopping the discrimination we practice in banning particular couples getting married.

Banning gay marriage abridges the civil rights of gays who would wish to traditionally and civilly marry the same sex partner.

Currently, NO ONE is legally allowed to have multiple marriage partners. The FORM of that kind of "marriage" needs to be argued as to its very nature as a legal basis and construct, and the legal basis for it needs to be created if state-sanctioned plural marriage is to be enacted.

 

'Cause it comes up less, to be honest. Most people know some gay people at this point, which makes it much easier to sympathize with them. Not many of us know polygamists, so it's not like we end up witness to a ton of anti-polygamy injustice.

Personally, I do think that polygamous families are as valid as any other kind. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage, but if it's going to be, it has to be fair to everyone. Polygamy and homosexual marriage are ultimately religious issues.

 

I'm actually convinced after reading a couple books about fundamental mormonism that allowing them to contractually marry would greatly improve the leverage the women have. Currently, the 1 + x wives are not legally entitled to anything. If they leave their husband they are shunned, broke, and sometimes have trouble even taking their children with them. If they got child support or alimony, they'd be in a much better position. I'd say for a fundamentalist mormon legalized polygamy should be the last thing they'd want.

 

Merely an observation. You're welcome to provide evidence disputing that. I would be curious to see what a society that has polygamy and women's rights would look like over the long haul.

Also curious as to how they handle the spare males who won't get wives in that set up. In the middle east, it seems to turn the guys into angry crackpots.

You are an advertiser's dream.

 

Look at polygamous cultures. There are none that we would call positive--neither the Muslims, nor the FLDS (only extant examples) are what we would consider modern and something we should aspire to. (and really, the only polygamous cultures are polygynous cultures). Ask the poor young men in those cultures what they think about it.....

 

By "polygamy," we do mean that the practice would go both ways, across gender lines, right? Men get to have multiple wives, women get to have multiple husbands?

 

Because polyandry is almost nonexistent in human cultures. The only record I can find of it is in a few small groups in which low status brothers share a wife. Men just don't like to share women.