Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[Spensed]

Martin Luther King never fought to continue a system of discrimination; he fought for equality for all -- yet gays, who aren't fighting for equality for all, think blacks should see their fight as a continuance of the civil rights movement? Blacks are quite justified in voting against gay marriage, just on the basis of the fact that it isn't a civil rights fight at all.

Of course, the fight for gay marriage is a civil rights fight. It may be other things as well, but it's clearly a battle to get the same civil rights for gays that straights enjoy.

I don't recall reading that Martin Luther King ever fought for plural marriages and certainly not as a significant platform in his battle "for equality for all". Unless he did, your attempt at using him to draw a distinction between the battle for racial and gay civil rights is piffle.

Extending the gay marriage battle to plural marriage falls in the bridge too far category. It introduces an additional obstacle that isn't a gay issue at all.

Plus, while in theory, the choice of plural marriage may not be any different to single partner marriage or gay marriage, the reality, as I see it at least, is that it's profoundly misogynistic and all part of the dominant male, servant-master crap. It would surprise me if a truly free and educated woman (or man) would want any part of that set up. So I wonder about how free and informed the choice involved really is. Not a reason to deprive them of it, of course, but hardly an incentive to do anything about fighting to get it for them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Religious? I'm not sure I follow you there. I'm definitely atheist myself. The real striking difference between liberal and conservative reasons for opposing things seems to be reason itself...

Yes, religious: many Mormons, among others, hold polygamy as a religious tenet. We're supposed to have religious freedom. Those who want to deny them that are engaging in religious discrimination.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course, the fight for gay marriage is a civil rights fight. It may be other things as well, but it's clearly a battle to get the same civil rights for gays that straights enjoy.

Straights don't have civil rights as far as marriage, they have government privileges. All gays are doing is trying to get the same privileges, and only for themselves.
It's only about rights if you're fighting on behalf of everyone.

I don't recall reading that Martin Luther King ever fought for plural marriages and certainly not as a significant platform in his battle "for equality for all". Unless he did, your attempt at using him to draw a distinction between the battle for racial and gay civil rights is piffle.

MLK fought for rights for all, regardless of the color of their skin.
Gays are fighting only for privileges, only for themselves.

Extending the gay marriage battle to plural marriage falls in the bridge too far category. It introduces an additional obstacle that isn't a gay issue at all.

That's the point -- gays are only interested in their own issues. If today's gays had been running MLK's campaign, Asians and other non-whites would have been excluded, and the laws proposed would have added blacks to whites on the list of privileged groups, while shutting out all others. It would still be just fine to deny housing to someone for having Korean blood, to deny a job because of Japanese ancestry, if MLK had been like today's gays.

Plus, while in theory, the choice of plural marriage may not be any different to single partner marriage or gay marriage, the reality, as I see it at least, is that it's profoundly misogynistic and all part of the dominant male, servant-master crap. It would surprise me if a truly free and educated woman (or man) would want any part of that set up. So I wonder about how free and informed the choice involved really is. Not a reason to deprive them of it, of course, but hardly an incentive to do anything about fighting to get it for them.

Um, wait -- how is three guys wanting to all be united/married/committed misogynistic? Or two guys and one gal? Or three gals?

 

[Soramaro]

THe Moromon Church outlawed Polygamy so they no longer hold it as any type of Tenet.

 

[Zingerific]

I think it's safe to say most doctors and sociologists are against Polygamy for good reasons.

Rights are not subject to the approval of sociologists and doctors. Rights are a priori, something every person is due by the very virtue of being a person -- I think Jefferson is pretty eloquent here, and straight forward.

(Besides, history is replete with examples of when said professionals were dead wrong -- I wouldn't want to listen to them on eugenics in the 1920s, for instance. Compulsory sterilization? Talk about disrespect for rights. I believe it's an error to think that they couldn't offer similar misguided judgments today.)

In any event, assuming a that marriage has anything to do with love is quite the assumption, and rather ahistorical. In fact, "romantic marriage" is quite recent. Even today, there are plenty of loveless marriages: shot-gun weddings, arranged marriages, green-card weddings, hell, even drunken Vegas weddings. In the past, marriage was primarily an economic institution; it had to do with property rights, not with love. In fact, today, some of the prime arguments for marriage equality are the property rights: taxes, survivor benefits, medical insurance, etc. My point here is that it doesn't matter whether the people are in love or not, nor does it matter if someone doesn't understand, or approve of, that love.

My view is that, as far as government is concerned, marriage is a contract between consenting, competent adults, and generally speaking I think people should be able to enter into any kind of contract they want.

But -- I have a few concerns. Will all the partners be married to each other? Or could there be another arrangement? I mean, could you have A married to B who's married to C, but A and C are not married? Add any more partners and you'd have a very complicated legal arrangement that directly pertains to the rights I talked about above; does everyone inherit collectively? Who makes medical decisions (if it's done by committee, that seems to undermine the whole point of that particular right)? How would taxes work? What if one jurisdiction recognizes such a marriage (as state, say) while another does not (like the feds)? I know many gay couples are now dealing with that last one. So if someone could be legally married yet not have those rights we are discussing (that are, legally speaking, the heart and soul of marriage), I can see opposition on those grounds.

It is neither arbitrary, subject to my own feelings, intuition, nor anything like it.

Really? I don't mean to doubt your veracity, JockBoy87; but then again, in your previous posts in this thread, how do you account for your liberal use of exclamation points?!?!? That looks pretty emotional to me. But if it's a stylistic choice, well, I'm sorry, that's just plain gauche.

Plus, while in theory, the choice of plural marriage may not be any different to single partner marriage or gay marriage, the reality, as I see it at least, is that it's profoundly misogynistic and all part of the dominant male, servant-master crap.

That too is an assumption that is flawed. You are talking about polygyny, i.e., single husband, multiple wives. You are neglecting polyandry, which is one wife, multiple husbands, as well as the other possible permutations, like a wholly male or female group, or two men and two women, and so on.

 

[Spensed]

Straights don't have civil rights as far as marriage, they have government privileges. All gays are doing is trying to get the same privileges, and only for themselves.
It's only about rights if you're fighting on behalf of everyone.

Who says? The courts and, I believe, the legislation talk of civil rights in this context, e.g. the recent Iowa case, "This lawsuit is a civil rights action...."

MLK fought for rights for all, regardless of the color of their skin.
Gays are fighting only for privileges, only for themselves.

Did MLK campaign for plural marriage? No. Hence, on your bizarre notion, he didn't fight for civil rights for all.

That's the point -- gays are only interested in their own issues. If today's gays had been running MLK's campaign, Asians and other non-whites would have been excluded, and the laws proposed would have added blacks to whites on the list of privileged groups, while shutting out all others. It would still be just fine to deny housing to someone for having Korean blood, to deny a job because of Japanese ancestry, if MLK had been like today's gays.

If ifs and and were pots and pons..... Once again, on your theory, MLK shut out plural marriage adherents and excluded them from the civil rights he fought for. Clearly, that's nonsenical thinking. It's a distortion to say "gays are only interested in their own issues". But any group is interested in the issues that particularly impact it. Plural marriage simply isn't a gay issue. People can campaign for something without meeting your subjective extrapolations, just as they can fight evil in one country but, for political or other reasons, not in another.

Um, wait -- how is three guys wanting to all be united/married/committed misogynistic? Or two guys and one gal? Or three gals?

If you read what I said, I was talking about the reality of plural marriages as I see it. And that isn't the happy little groups you're conjuring up. It's some asshole guy whether from some pseudo-Mormon sect or adhering to his interetation of Muslim beliefs, having his stable of subservient females.

Even without civil unions and gay marriage, in gay circles, one regularly came across two guys or two women who lived together as if they were married. I've never, repeat never, come acoss that situation with any of the configurations you mention. But, allowing that there may be some folk itnerested in plural marriage outside the stallion and brood mares scenario, my suspicion is that the same sort of abusive or quasi-abusive dynamics would apply.

That's not to say, I'd oppose plural marriage for anyone who wants to make such a choice. The case would need to me made and it isn't up to the pro-gay marriage folk to make it. I just don't see that one needs to follow the reductio ad absurdum path that you and O'Reilly and his ilk do consistently.

Repeat after me, until you get it. Gay marriage need have nothing to do with plural marriage, inter-species marriage, marriage with minors, incestuous marriages, etc., etc.

 

[construct]

If you read what I said, I was talking about the reality of plural marriages as I see it. And that isn't the happy little groups you're conjuring up. It's some asshole guy whether from some pseudo-Mormon sect or adhering to his interetation of Muslim beliefs, having his stable of subservient females.

Even without civil unions and gay marriage, in gay circles, one regularly came across two guys or two women who lived together as if they were married. I've never, repeat never, come acoss that situation with any of the configurations you mention. But, allowing that there may be some folk itnerested in plural marriage outside the stallion and brood mares scenario, my suspicion is that the same sort of abusive or quasi-abusive dynamics would apply.

That's not to say, I'd oppose plural marriage for anyone who wants to make such a choice. The case would need to me made and it isn't up to the pro-gay marriage folk to make it. I just don't see that one need to follow the reductio ad absurdum path that you and O'Reilly and his ilk do consistently.

Repeat after me, until you get it. Gay marriage need have nothing to do with plural marriage, inter-species marriage, marriage with minors, incestuous marriages, etc., etc.

Actually, I was intending to include, but not to limit, the question of group marriage. I decided to phrase the issue in terms of plural marriage because, I think, if Mormon or Islamic plural marriages pass muster then so would group marriages, but not necessarily the other way round. Nevertheless, your observations about group marriages may be valid, and I'm not intending to take a side in this thread. I want others rather than me to have a chance to express their views without my intervention.

 

[Kulindahr]

THe Moromon Church outlawed Polygamy so they no longer hold it as any type of Tenet.

1. That's like saying that the Pope says abortion is wrong, so no R. Catholics ever get abortions.

2. Which Mormon church? There are several.

 

[Kulindahr]

Rights are not subject to the approval of sociologists and doctors. Rights are a priori, something every person is due by the very virtue of being a person -- I think Jefferson is pretty eloquent here, and straight forward.

In any event, assuming a that marriage has anything to do with love is quite the assumption, and rather ahistorical. In fact, "romantic marriage" is quite recent. Even today, there are plenty of loveless marriages: shot-gun weddings, arranged marriages, green-card weddings, hell, even drunken Vegas weddings. In the past, marriage was primarily an economic institution; it had to do with property rights, not with love. In fact, today, some of the prime arguments for marriage equality are the property rights: taxes, survivor benefits, medical insurance, etc. My point here is that it doesn't matter whether the people are in love or not, nor does it matter if someone doesn't understand, or approve of, that love.

And any gay who doesn't get that last part has a serious problem....

If the gay community can tell straights that man-man love is just as valid as man-woman love, then they have to accept that man-man-man love, etc., is just as valid, too.

If it isn't about love, then it's about freedom of association... and associating in numbers larger than two has to be accepted as just as valid as associating in pairs.

On either of those, the only other option is to assert that somehow one's own choices are superior to those of others... without any foundation whatsoever for such an assertion.

The only other option is pure tyranny, the abrogation of individual freedom. And if a gay person believes in that, on what basis does he fight for "gay rights"?

My view is that, as far as government is concerned, marriage is a contract between consenting, competent adults, and generally speaking I think people should be able to enter into any kind of contract they want.

Yes: all that marriage is in the eyes of a government is a pre-defined contract. Such a contract is either open to anyone, in which case there is liberty, or to a specified group, in which case there is discrimination.

 

[Kulindahr]

But -- I have a few concerns. Will all the partners be married to each other? Or could there be another arrangement? I mean, could you have A married to B who's married to C, but A and C are not married? Add any more partners and you'd have a very complicated legal arrangement that directly pertains to the rights I talked about above; does everyone inherit collectively? Who makes medical decisions (if it's done by committee, that seems to undermine the whole point of that particular right)? How would taxes work? What if one jurisdiction recognizes such a marriage (as state, say) while another does not (like the feds)? I know many gay couples are now dealing with that last one. So if someone could be legally married yet not have those rights we are discussing (that are, legally speaking, the heart and soul of marriage), I can see opposition on those grounds.

These are good questions.

Your first example covers the infamous "chain marriage" arrangement. Properly speaking, it's not a marriage, because a marriage involves mutual commitment of the parties involved -- what it would really be would best be regarded as legalized extra-marital affairs.

Things such as inheritance and medical decisions would have to be defined in the marriage contract. For medical decisions, it might be senior spouse, majority vote, unanimous decision, or whatever people might want to decide.
I don't see a problem with taxes -- there shouldn't be either benefit or penalty to filing married, just convenience.

Properly speaking, there aren't any rights that marriage bestows, in a legal sense; there are only benefits and privileges. But the jurisdictional confusion would be a problem.
That's just one more reason we need SCOTUS to tell the country that freedom of association is definitely a right, and it's covered by the Fourteenth.

 

[Kulindahr]

Did MLK campaign for plural marriage? No. Hence, on your bizarre notion, he didn't fight for civil rights for all.

Don't try to spin this like an O'Reilly.

MLK fought for color issues -- and he didn't exclude any.

Gays are fighting for relationship issues -- and they're excluding everyone else.

Once again, on your theory, MLK shut out plural marriage adherents and excluded them from the civil rights he fought for. Clearly, that's nonsenical thinking. It's a distortion to say "gays are only interested in their own issues". But any group is interested in the issues that particularly impact it. Plural marriage simply isn't a gay issue. People can campaign for something without meeting your subjective extrapolations, just as they can fight evil in one country but, for political or other reasons, not in another.

MLK wasn't only interested in blacks -- he was interested in all shades of humanity.

Yes, gays can campaign for anything they want -- but it should be honest: what's sought is privileges, not rights; "gay marriage" isn't about equality, but special privileges.

Repeat after me, until you get it. Gay marriage need have nothing to do with plural marriage, inter-species marriage, marriage with minors, incestuous marriages, etc., etc.

In order for that to be true, you need to concede that gay marriage isn't about rights or equality, it's about joining the existing oppressing class.

As for the rest, thanks for demonstrating that you're part of the right-wing fundamentalist cabal who relies on idiotic associations to make arguments, since they don't understand what marriage is to begin with.

 

[MystikWizard]

Don't try to spin this like an O'Reilly.

MLK fought for color issues -- and he didn't exclude any.

Gays are fighting for relationship issues -- and they're excluding everyone else.

So? Maybe Gays think it is more important to have one, loving, committed spouse as opposed to having marriages simply for sex among many spouses.

Yes, gays can campaign for anything they want -- but it should be honest: what's sought is privileges, not rights; "gay marriage" isn't about equality, but special privileges.

I think the overwhelming majority of the Gay Community will tell you that it is about Equality, and it is about Rights. People like you can disagree all you want, though.

The fact is that you can not choose who you are attracted to. But you can choose how many spouses to have. One of these you can control. The other you can not.

In order for that to be true, you need to concede that gay marriage isn't about rights or equality, it's about joining the existing oppressing class.

As for the rest, thanks for demonstrating that you're part of the right-wing fundamentalist cabal who relies on idiotic associations to make arguments, since they don't understand what marriage is to begin with.

Being that 78% of the respondents disagree with you, perhaps the problem is with you, more so than the rest of us.

 

[bankside]

I actually think this subject matter is a distraction tactic to try to derail equal marriage for gays.

There are a lot of people out there who would sell their equality on the altar of their favourite church, and who would do anything to try to claw back whatever spoils they can get for religious institutions. Although it has been literally centuries since anyone's church had a say over his marriage arrangements that wasn't first granted by civil society's government, the current push for equal marriage provides an opportunity for theocratic sympathizers to try to stage a comeback.

"Just say no" to letting your priest, rabbi, reverend, shaman, or witch doctor control the laws of marriage. Governments make good marriage laws.

If groups of people want to all get married in a giant group, they need to make the case. I'll give a fair hearing, but I will not for a second fall for the specious argument that it is unfair to refuse to marry the first stadium-full that asks for a wedding unless they offer some very compelling arguments first, arguments that stand on their own once equal marriage for gays has been established.

 

[Spensed]

MLK fought for color issues -- and he didn't exclude any.

Gays are fighting for relationship issues -- and they're excluding everyone else.

On your own case, MLK excluded non color issues (like plural marriage rights).

That's no different from what gays doing in fighting for rights that are important to them and leaving others to make the case on rights that aren't specific to them.

You're seeing a difference between MLK and gay marriage proponents that simply isn't there

Yes, gays can campaign for anything they want -- but it should be honest: what's sought is privileges, not rights; "gay marriage" isn't about equality, but special privileges.

It's about equality with straights already enjoying the same rights and privileges. If you want to fight for marriage rights between man and moose, be my guest. But it has nothing to do with gay marriage or the quest for equality between gay and straight unions.

Even semantically, there's nothing in the terms rights and privileges that mandates that rights are always all-applying, while privileges are always selective or exclusionary. Yer pays yer money and yer use the words as you see fit.

In order for that to be true, you need to concede that gay marriage isn't about rights or equality, it's about joining the existing oppressing class.

Horse feathers. Only in your head is the fight for gay marriage rights pre-conditioned by the obligation to fight for plural marriage rights. They need have nothing to do with each other.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

I prefer the neatness of tackling one philosophical question at a time. People who try to muddle one issue by confusing it with another, unrelated concern are basically out to sabotage social progress. Let's be focused and disciplined. Leave talk of plural marriage for another place and time.

 

[lostnfound]

I don't have time to read all 4 pages of this thread, so I apologize if I'm stating what has already been stated.

Someone said that we shouldn't support polygamy because it is unnatural. True, but that is the same argument against same-sex marriage.

Also, I think people are just afraid of legalizing same-sex marriage because it might lead to polygamy, and other variations of marriage. We may argue that it doesn't matter who you marry, but many afraid that it might lead to the argument for how many you marry, at what age, and what you marry.

 

[MystikWizard]

Those in favor of polygamy will not come on here and define a limit for how many spouses they can legally have, and how many exemptions can be claimed for them.

Well, we have something in place that already sets a limit on the number of spouses you can claim. And it's one. One spouse.

 

[MystikWizard]

What is the current law on how many children (exemptions) one can claim? Is there a limit imposed by the IRS?

A spouse is your lover. That is different from one's offspring. Children are NOT the same as spouses, no matter how much those in favor of polygamy attempt to claim otherwise.

 

[opinterph]

I'm sure the IRS has laws on the number of TOTAL exemptions one can claim. Whatever they are just use those limits.

I don’t think the IRS imposes a limit on the number of dependent exemptions. Nonetheless, in order to benefit from an IRS dependent exemption, you must earn income. (It is possible that an individual could support numerous dependents without income.) If income is the source of support for your dependents, the number of exemptions becomes immaterial after your adjusted gross income exceeds a certain limit ($357,100 in 2007 [nolo])

For a middle-income, two-parent, two-child family, expenses for one child ranged from $10,930 to $12,030, per year depending on the age of the child, with expenditures on teenagers being the highest. [US Dept Agriculture]

For sake of simplicity, we could assume each kid costs $11,480 per year. It is logical to imagine, therefore, that a maximum number of exemptions exists – at least in terms of the resulting effect they have on individual tax obligations. An algorithm would be fairly complicated to devise.

 

[JayHawk]

I want polygamy. That way the older boy can clean and cook while the younger guys perform other domestic "chores"