Do you support the right of practitioners of plural marriage to come out of the closet and legally marry? If not, why? How can you call it marriage equality, yet refuse to extend the same rights to others seeking them? Doesn't it stand to reason if gays can marry we should not tell any consenting adults who they can love or how many? Doesn't it stand to reason that if plural marriage is legalized there will less welfare fraud and children will have more protection? Doesn't it seem odd the state subsidizes the children of "hosers" who impregnate and leave their children without a father, while it threatens with arrest fathers who would marry and help support the families he creates? I also wonder if gays oppose plural marriage because it is part of the war on religion?
First I will say that I for one have no moral objection to plural marriage as long as it involves consenting adults participating on an equal basis. In fact my spouse and I have “played house” with other couples as well as singles for periods of time. You may have heard of the Polyamory Society that promotes the practice, although I don’t think that there is a lot of political support and it is certainly not a “movement” as same sex marriage is. Nevertheless, if it were to come to the forefront of public and political discourse there would be legal and social issues that we would have to deal with much in the same way that we are grappling with same sex marriage now. While I don’t see those issues as insurmountable, such arrangements would upend the concept of marriage a bit more than the current debate has. In addition, I’m here to tell you that if you think that one on one marriage is challenging, try dealing with the dynamics of a group marriage. Also, to be clear, we are not talking about polygamy, a decidedly unequal arrangement where men have multiple wives that are often under aged and coerced into the arrangement. Having said that I will also say that most often, when “other alternative lifestyles “ are brought up in a discussion of same sex marriage, and prefaced with “why not equality for all or you’re being a hypocrite” I have found that most often, the writer has a nefarious intent. Frequently those making this argument do not really believe in what that present as full equality for all, but rather wish to derail and obfuscate the issue of marriage equality-gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples enjoy under the law and as accepted by contemporary society. The intent is to stoke the fears of those who are already dubious about any redefinition of marriage with a slippery slope type of scenario. A logical fallacy if you will Also, those who accuse someone of being a hypocrite for support same sex marriage but not “other variations” on marriage are, intentionally or not, perpetrating another type of logical fallacy, a slight of hand known as Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/ (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy. It attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position and attempts to show that a criticism or objection to that position applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. It is also a false analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations which is another favorite trick of people trying to win an argument when there argument is inherently weak. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one. The issue of other sexual preferences is not on the table and has NOTHING to do with the current debate. Equality means equal to what heterosexual people can do that is generally accepted by society and is legal. When, and if the issues of further changing the definition of marriage comes up, it will be an issue that will affect everyone, not just something that will be pushed by gay men as you seem to think. In fact I can tell you from experience, that the vast majority of people involved in polyamory are not gay. I suggest that if you want to discuss plural marriage, you should start a separate topic on it. To do it here is-intentionally or not-undermining the cause for marriage equality. So my friend, please explain to us what your true intent is with this post. Please explain your position on same sex marriage as in marriage equality independently of other issues. Oh and this: I also wonder if gays oppose plural marriage because it is part of the war on religion? Makes no sense at all, you’ll have to work on organizing that thought a little better
How would that work? Your premise is that with plural marriage there would be less welfare /fraud because there would be lots of fathers around and at least some of them would stick around and take legal and financial responsibility for all of the kids? It would also have to assume that large numbers of people would participate in the practice, enough to put a serious dent in the problem of absent fathers. Those are pretty dubious assumptions. Its a non sequitur if you ask me. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion that plural marriage should be legal. I'm not opposed to plural marriage but you'll have to come up with something better than that to convince others
I'm pro gay marriage and pro plural marriage. In fact I'm in a polyamorous relationship right now, I have three girlfriends I see on the regular but live with two and they date other men. What's the big deal? We are consenting adults. And none of us believe in that stupid fairy tale (*)(*)(*)(*) about the talking snakes or the guy walking on water or the man in the sky who judges you while you masturbate.
First, though we are on opposite side of the political spectrum, I appreciate your well thought out and sincere response. Why should others' be convinced plural marriage should be legal when it is a personal choice? As with gay marriage, that was pretty much coerced with threats of being called bigot. Why shouldn't opponents of plural marriage just call their opponents bigots to get marriage equality?? If it is none of my business what gays do in the bedroom then why is it gays' business if a man sleeps with 3 women? To me, legalizing plural marriage would bring many out of the shadows and protect young girls and women who would otherwise be living in a "shrouded in secrecy" polygamous compound which marries 16 year olds to old "religious freak" pervs. As for wanting to specially protect women from plural marriage, I think it assumes we are weak because we are women. Maybe sister wives like the idea that they don't have top perform all the time, or do the dishes, or cook or clean. Modern polygamous women work outside the home. I want these folks brought into the light and accepted, not as normal but as having the right as human beings to make their on family choices. - - - Updated - - - I am glad to see you support freedom.
You've gotten yourself rather worked up over this plural marriage think. I have to wonder what that's all about. It's really not my issue, nor are there very many people focused on it. I'm still not sure if you are really that passionate about it or if it's an attempt to derail the discussion on same sex marriage which is what this thread is about. I wrote extensively about why plural marriage, while an interesting subject and not without it's merits, should be a separate discussion. It should not be in the context of "if gays want rights, why not these others also" I'm not going to reinvent that wheal now. Start a thread on plural marriage and defend it in it's own right independent of gay rights. Keep in mind that if plural marriage were to emerge as a major social/political/legal issue in the future, it will not be a "gay" or "straight issue as all people regardless of sexual orientation will have a stake in it one way or another.
Sure, why not. I don't believe moral objections can or should be entertained unless there is a demonstrable interest at stake. As I've said before, if there is any issue with it, it is logistical, or what must be a profound demonstration of inequality to women. Absent the demonstration of such a burden, I see no reason it should be blocked. And just to be clear, there is no law against "if a man sleeps with 3 women", the only laws are against attempts to marry more than once. In its current form, our laws are not built to handle such things, but that's not to say some level of accommodation can't be made which supports freedom while reasonably protecting against abuse of the system.
ever heard of the fallacy fallacy? I think that usually people who make this point aren't in favor of gay marriage - which isn't much of a point, of course the most common critic of a cause is not a proponent of it. That much isn't shocking. But I think the objection is usually just to the demagogic abuse of terms because they sound nice, when they don't actually apply. Just like 'progressives.' I personally want to start an 'awesomists' movement.
I don't support government marriage of any kind. So yes, people can call their relationships whatever they want. I have no problem with polygamy, and even if I did, it's none of my business.
do heterosexuals have that right today? nope, then that is not a right same sex couples are asking for, they are only asking for equal rights under the law you can only enter into a contract with one partner at a time, now if they get divorced they can marry the other person.. just like heterosexuals do today .
While people continue to wring their hands and agonize over same sex marriage, I thought that I would offer some thoughts about what might lie ahead and what we might do to smooth the way. We must realize that down the road anything can happen. Any number of issues, foreseen or not can arise. I frequently rail against slippery slope predictions-such as plural marriage- that are injected into the same sex marriage debate. However, I do so not because I dismiss the possibility that a redefinition of marriage now, can lead to other changes later. Nor am I voicing a moral objection. Rather, I believe that we must deal with further change at the right time, learn from history, and be smarter going forward in order to avoid, or at least minimize the anguish that has plagued the gay marriage debate. I believe that we first have to deal with marriage equality in the here and now and new issues as they arise, spontaneously, in the future. Here is a time line of how it might all play out: 2018: While the debate over same sex marriage continues and more states allow it, intersexual people, those who are not clearly male or female are revealing themselves and begin to assert their rights. In a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, a couple applies for a marriage license. One of them, who wants to marry a male, has the biological and chromosomal characteristic of both a male and a female. This person has an androgynous name and appearance and refuses to identify as male or female. In fact many government form that ask for gender have an option for other which this person chooses. The license request is rejected on the basis of marriage still being between a man and a woman. 2020: SCOTUS has ruled that same sex people have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as they are now a protected class under the 14th Amendment. States that refuse to legislate it are forced by federal courts to allow it. However, there is still the matter of intersexual people. Is he/she / whatever the same or opposite sex as his/her partner. Where do they fit in? Even now that same sex marriage is legal, if the new laws specifies opposite or same sex couples there could be a problem. Its a gray area, and many jurisdictions are unsure of how to deal with it. Furthermore, while gays and same sex marriage is generally accepted, inter-sexuals are regarded as freaks and are being denied other rights as well. 2022: The concept of polyamory, which has been around a while, is gaining in popularity. A heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license to marry another heterosexual couple. At the same time, another couple consisting of a man and a bi sexual woman seek to marry another bi sexual woman. Both applications are rejected and a long and arduous national debate and many court cases ensues. Meanwhile the issue concerning that intersexual situation rages on with some states refusing to change the wording of the law that allows same sex couples to marry, to language supporting marriage between any two consenting adults. 2025: Inter-sexual people have become rather vocal and militant in demanding rights. More and more of them are choosing to live openly rather than in the closet- pretending to be male or female. Some, including gays, are accusing them of being bullies in demanding the same rights as normal people, i.e. male or female. As a result of the relentless pushing of the intersexual agenda, some states are changing their laws to include them. There are also a number of lawsuits pending in state and federal courts. 2030: Group marriage among heterosexuals gains more popular and acceptance, and some states, through legislation or court rulings, are beginning to allow it. Courts find that there is no rational basis for states to deny these marriages. However, all of the cases to date were brought heterosexual couples who argued that large families of men and women are in keeping with tradition and create the most efficient and efficacious environment for children . The subsequent ruling were narrowly defined to only include married heterosexual couples or singles marrying other married heterosexual couples or singles. Almost immediately, gay couples are taking notice. They want equality the ability to marry other gay couples and gay singles. More years of debate and legal maneuvering ensue. Rulings go constantly against gay couples. The basis for these rulings is concern for children. While it has been established by this time that gay parenting does not harm children, studies have emerged-sponsored by the Family Research Council which now supports heterosexual group marriage- that show that a childs exposure to more than two gay parent figures at a time is in fact harmful, and that is the basis for opposing group marriage for gays. Meanwhile the issue of intersexual people is still unresolved. 2035: The SCOTUS finally decides that marriage is between any two consenting adults solving the problem of what to do about intersexual people. However, group marriage involving gay married couples still is a divisive issue. Furthermore, groups of people-married and single- of different gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are seeking the right to marry further complicating the issue. 2040: SCOTUS determines that marriage is a universal natural right and that everyone has the right to marry as many people as they wish. There is no rational basis or compelling government reason for restricting marriage at all. Could the road to 2040 have been less arduous? It would have helped if the issue of same sex marriage as it is before us today was resolved sooner, before other alternative lifestyles came to the fore. Even now, the waters are being muddied by those who bring up plural marriage as an invented issue. It can only get worse if it becomes a real issue before the current debate is laid to rest. I will add, that to push the envelope on issues before their time serves no ones interest, but we must be prepared to address them at the appropriate time in history and cultural evolution. And in dealing with those future issues, it is important that we build on the lessons that were hopefully learned from the earlier matters. However, that will only happen if we can get over the moronic, puritanical and ridged positions that we hold and think more about what actually makes sense and whats important and relevant in the current cultural and legal environment. 2045: All is well. Marital bliss for all. But wait! Farmer Brown in Montana wants to marry his flock of sheep. That same year, space aliens who have been living among us for centuries reveal themselves to us. Young people are fascinated by them and hooking up and marrying them becomes a fast moving fad. However, marriage is only for and among humans. The fight begins anew. Pat Robertson literally turns in his grave and Michelle Bachman, now 92, comes out of retirement and teams up with Rick Perry 95 and Rick Santorum 93, to start a clinic to cure people of wanting to have sex with aliens, legal or other wise. At the same time, congressional Republicans introduce a constitutional amendment against (space) alien marriage and adopt a party platform to encourage them to self deport.
Why not, if all of the parties involved are adults and agree to the marriage who are we to say they should not be allowed.
You beat me to it. I think the correct point, yours, is that consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever relationships they want. If this includes plural marriage, then why not? It has nothing to do with me and does not affect me in the least.
sheep like children can not give consent, now if dna research takes us to the point of half man\half sheep (sheepman), then you will have a point, as long as the adult sheepman give you consent, you can marry him they tried the same arguments to prevent blacks from marring whites and visa versa guess what, the same arguments you used could be used to prevent heterosexual marriage .
thank you, I have seen many of these claims from those that oppose same sex marriage before, so just assumed it was real...
Personally I applauded same sex marriage, as a first step. I would like to see the definition of family changed, to allow more voluntary family connections, and all that implies available under the law. Traditional families do not stand a chance in modern capitalist society, they get torn apart by the economic forces which overwhelm social concerns. Marriage and family aren't about sex, sex doesn't require marriage, it's about financial and legal rights. It behooves capitalists to destroy families, they get more compliant workers that way. Social rights that preserve families are seen as "socialism" in the US, which of course they are, socialism is pro-family, because it puts importance on social goals above economic goals. I often wonder why people who claim to be pro-family, support the most destructive environment for families as an economic policy.
