Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[MystikWizard]

My day will come, unquestionably. As will yours. However, what will happen ICO if you pass away, and there still has been no serious movement towards Polygamy? What if the country continues to reject your view essentially as it does today? There isn't anything you can do, except respect the will of the people, no matter what your feelings are regarding how things "should be".

And no, you most definitely are not out for truth. You are out for your own little ideology. However, while you are more concerned with being PC, I am more concerned with making my intentions about doing what I feel is best for society, overall. Maybe being PC isn't what is best for society, in this regard. Have you ever examined that possibility?

Explain to me how Polygamy will benefit Society, in your view. Furthermore, do you see any potential detriments to it whatsoever, as it pertains to Spouses, Children, the Divorce Rate, or abuse of the system?

You also want proof that love is quantifiable? Prove to me that one husband can provide the exact same amount of attention to one wife as he could to 10 wives. Or how about 20 wives. We can wait.

And the fact, Oh Champion of Political Correctness, that there isn't and nor has there ever been a serious movement towards the legalization of Polygamy in this country, should be testament that it isn't just me echoing my own thoughts. But rather, millions of people who are in agreement with me. Otherwise, Polygamy would certainly be legal, now wouldn't it?

As far as tradition goes, maybe tradition, in this case, is fine. Ever think of that? You know the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" And that is what I personally feel is best to preserve the concept of "family" in this country.

This debate is rather pointless. You have your ideologies. And I have mine. At least I can rest assured that your ideology as it pertains to this matter, isn't in jeopardy of being passed any time soon. You, on the other hand, have a very steep hill to climb. Better get a move on.

 

[MystikWizard]

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3330688&postcount=14

So you say. Apparently, though, things do change---from a proponent of liberty to a proponent of tyranny... you've done an about-face once, it seems.

I have done an About-Face, you are correct. I have had a chance to truly examine my politically ideologies with this past election, and I have refined many of those ideologies.

For the record, no I do not consider myself a Libertarian, any longer. So, let's set the record straight on that.

BTW, I have never claimed to be the Omniscient One on the Forum. There are people far more intelligent than me on this Forum, and I am humble enough to admit it. However, I do have the satisfaction of knowing that people like me are out there to stop people like you in contributing to the moral decay of society. Who's the Ineffective one, now? At the end of the day, marriage will remain between two people, and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Gay Marriage, I support 100%. Polygamy, I do not.

BTW, if I am a proponent of tyranny, I suppose we live in it, since a majority of the rest of the country feels the same way I do on this matter. Call it whatever you want, though. As they say, "whatever floats your boat."

 

[MystikWizard]

^^ We have our Own Moral Compasses on what each of us deem is best for the society that we live in. And those Moral Compasses help shape our Way of Life. Sometimes, the Moral Compasses of the Majority simply outweigh your own political ideologies. You really can't do anything else, but accept the will of the people.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

But it is one philosophical question: freedom of association; specifically, freedom of committed personal relationships.

It's a mark of a selfish special interest that it excludes others and defines issues in ways that pertain only to it, so that no one else will gain. In this case, the "gay marriage" movement has gone farther than that, because they're not even fighting for equality for all gays -- just with those willing to be slaves to a slightly altered tradition.

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.

I defined it: as many as mutually love one another.

By asking for a limit, you're requesting merely a change in the terms of tyranny -- but the point is to eliminate the tyranny.

No, it really isn't illogical.

Common sense dictates that the more of something you have, the less attention and love you can give the others remaining. And we have been around this block several times.

For example, and we've gone through this plenty times before .... will Wife 1 be loved as much by her husband if there also existed Wives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10? Or would she be more loved by her Husband if it were just her and him?

The overwhelming number of people in our society wants it setup so that there are marriages between two people and only two people, with the one spouse receiving all the love and support from the other spouse.

You need votes to change that , and it doesn't appear that you are getting much support. Be happy with one, and then if you want to openly have a relationship with two, three, four other people in front of your spouse or behind his/her back, then so be it.

You've got two erroneous concepts going here:first is that mutual love is subject to arithmetic, and second that this isn't about mutual love. That second one is exactly what the fundies say about gays.

You give an example of a number of wives. The way you're arguing it, though, if there's a man and wife, it's one relationship; if there are two wives, it's two relationships; three wives, and it's three relationships. In reality, the number of relationships goes from one, to three, to six, to ten....
So it's fallacious to ask about the attention only between A & B, A & C, A & D, A & E; you have to consider B & C, B & D, B & E, C & D, C & E, and D & E. Odds are, that in the A-B-C-D-E 'marriage', every individual will actually get more "love and attention" than either partner in a mere A-B 'marriage', because the probability of being with one or more of your loved ones at any given time of the day is increased.

Actually, there is a difference. Sexual preference, as you well know, is not a choice. Polygamy, however, is a choice.

Not relevant -- the question is whether you can 'marry' who you want, and if the answer is "yes", then number can't be limited, either. It's either liberty or tyranny.

The government should recognize all unions between legally consenting parties (anyone at or above the age of consent, and all human), no matter the number or sex of those individuals.

Marriage is up to the various institutions like churches, temples, or cults (heheh); regardless, the government must recognize it.

Yep -- that's called "freedom". Two+ centuries after the words "All men are created equal" were penned, not even a majority in the country to which those were applied get it.

Congratulations on being one of the few.

 

[Kulindahr]

Therefore, let the people decide. Oh ... wait a minute, it seems like not only do a majority of the American people agree with my stance ... but there isn't even a movement to support legalizing polygamy going on in the country. Assumingly because a majority of the country feels the same way I, and others on this board do.

Ah, the argument for dictatorship of the majority.

Polygamy equals less attention, and therefore less of an effort at love made to the spouses.

False -- you're not doing the arithmetic: more mutual loved ones increases the odds that you'll be having quality time with a loved one ("spouse").

Most importantly of all, the children of these spouses have absolutely zero say in the matter ... and therefore will grow up without the frequency of the presence of one of the spouses. We already acknowledge the widespread problem this is causing in the Black Community. However, the children have absolutely zero say in the matter at all. Is that fair to them that their father, who may want to have 10 wives or more, isn't going to have the time to give them the attention he would if he was living in the same household with his children?

And to be frank, the exemption argument I have made is not necessarily a greater factor than the others. Quite frankly, I am more concerned with the effect these relationships will have on other spouses and more particularly, the children, who as I pointed out in the last paragraph, have no say in the matter at all. And I don't think that's fair to them and their childhoods to be raised in such an environment, where they wouldn't be receiving the same degree of love and attention as they would if there were two parents and only two parents living in the same household.

Wait -- since the household has more parents in it, there will be less parental attention for the children? How does that work?

I took enough anthropology to know that those in households with more "parents" present grow up at least as stable as those in dyadic households. And if you want to talk "fair", just how fair is it to kids to be bounced from daycare to school to sports to whatever, hardly ever seeing their parents except possibly briefly in the morning and somewhat more at length in the evening? In a multiple-spouse relationship, there would be reduced need for shunting the kids off to other places as inconveniences.

 

[Kulindahr]

Argue all you want, throw as many temper tantrums as you want, scream and holler how "it isn't fair" all you want. At the end of the day, polygamy isn't legal, and nor will it be anytime soon. As I can see that this is a passionate topic of yours, that must really burn you, doesn't it?

All forms of tyranny burn me. I can't stand cigarette smoke, I automatically deduct four on a scale of ten for attractiveness when someone lights up, I regard anyone who smokes as mentally deficient... and I have fought every move to limit or punish smoking.

I don't want spouses viewed simply as sex objects. You don't think it's my business? Too Fucking bad. I'm making it my business, because I view it as my moral obligation to the society with which we live in to allow for partners to provide their full love, attention, and support to each other.

Well, then don't have spouses who view you, or whom you view, as sex objects.

Why is it that you think that if more than two people all love each other, it's suddenly only about sex? The gay trio I'm acquainted with here doesn't have one partner who's only a sex object -- they're all partners.

The fact of the matter is that despite your ideologies of how our country should be, we vote on issues such as this. If you view it as Unfair, or an Invasion of Privacy, again you are simply going to have to have a temper tantrum. Because that really is too bad.

I, as a voter, have an equal say in what I want the norms of our society to be, just like everyone else. So, my best suggestion is if you feel so strongly that Polygamy should be legalized across the country, bring it up to your Congressman. And we'll see what happens.

You arrogantly cling to the tyranny of the majority, even the worship of democracy! Love of democracy is one of the most evil things put over on civilization; it has replaced love of freedom, love of rights, and fostered more "us v them" feeling than in many a tribal society.

It shouldn't even be a question of "Should polygamy be legalized?", and more than it should be "Should gay marriage be legalized?" Both questions are wrong, because they both assume that the government has a legitimate authority to regulate our interpersonal, intimate relationships.

Claim to such authority is immoral, and those who support it participate in that immorality.

 

[MystikWizard]

Kulindahr, go preach to someone else. I like ICO, and him and I still got in a very heated squabble over this topic. And it isn't going to happen again.

I made my positions quite clear on this topic and stated why I feel the way I do. You may feel my reasons for feeling the way I do are not legitimate. And that's fine. I don't agree with your reasons for supporting it. So, we simply have a difference in opinion. You think I am immoral for endorsing the views I do. I think your personal views on your own definition of love are immoral. You aren't changing my mind. End of story.

Go try to rally others to your cause, as you have the entire rest of the forum to work on who also seems less than enthusiastic about supporting polygamy.

 

[slnattak]

I don't care what other people do. I just want to do the things that I want to do as long as it doesn't hurt or infringe on anybody else's rights. We're all gonna die anyway.

So I guess I'm a traditional leftist. I think universal moral codes are shit. They just make a society feel depressed and guilty for doing what everybody naturally wants to do.

It's always better to redeem somebody and make them happier than it is to punish them. Even if they killed somebody. People act like our lives actually mean something and that we're 'special Jesus' children' and it's just a bunch of saccharine hogwash to me. There's no authentic emotion in it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, go preach to someone else. I made my positions quite clear on this topic and stated why I feel the way I do. You think I am immoral for endorsing the views I do. I think you are immoral for your personal views on your own twisted definition of love. You aren't changing my mind. End of story.

Go try to rally others to your cause, as you have the entire rest of the forum to seemingly rally to your cause, who also seems less than enthusiastic about supporting polygamy.

Do you realize how much you sound like Fred Phelps?

You're claiming your personal, subjective opinion as superior, and labeling the love of others as "twisted" because they aren't like yours.

It would serve you and those like you right if Congress not only kept DOMA, but made it an amendment to the Constitution. Given how hateful many of you are about this, I could almost wish it would happen.

Except that I don't place my personal, subjective opinions above everything else; I believe in freedom. But I will congratulate the blacks who vote against gay marriage for being consistent, because they fought for people of all color, and you are fighting only for yourself.

 

[slnattak]

The government should stay out of our lives, period.

 

[MystikWizard]

Do you realize how much you sound like Fred Phelps?

You're claiming your personal, subjective opinion as superior, and labeling the love of others as "twisted" because they aren't like yours.

It would serve you and those like you right if Congress not only kept DOMA, but made it an amendment to the Constitution. Given how hateful many of you are about this, I could almost wish it would happen.

Except that I don't place my personal, subjective opinions above everything else; I believe in freedom. But I will congratulate the blacks who vote against gay marriage for being consistent, because they fought for people of all color, and you are fighting only for yourself.

I changed my wording on a few sentences because they didn't come out right. One of them being labeling you personally as "immoral", which wasn't right. So I take that back and apologize.

As far as labeling me as Fred Phelps, give me a break. When I start preaching to you that you are going to Hell because of your sexual orientation, feel free to let me know. I simply am standing up for part of the norm of marriage, and that is keeping it between two people. If you want to label me a "bigot" because I don't support your definition of marriage, then go ahead and label me a "bigot". I don't care. If I was actually discriminating between sexual orientation, which can not be controlled, that is one thing. This, however, is a tradition that I do not want to see become an accepted norm in this society. And I have mentioned my concerns on why I have those concerns elsewhere in the thread.

As far as DOMA, I would be in support of the Act as long as it includes Gay Marriage, provides all equal benefits to those with Same Sex Marriages ... AND restricts marriage to be between two people, and no more. If the best way to allow for that is to amend that piece of Legislation, so be it. If the best way to allow for that is to repeal that Legislation, then so be that, too.

Get mad, stomp your feet, and whatever all you want, but that is the norm I want to see reflected in the society I live in. That, is World's better than what it is right now.

And I most definitely am not the only person who feels the way I do. People who feel the way you do are very much a tiny minority in this country.

Don't like it the way it is right now? Then go out and fight for it. Just don't expect to get anywhere with me on this topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

The government should stay out of our lives, period.

That was the point of the Constitution. But lawyers have made it mean the opposite of what it was supposed to in places, giving the government free reign to regulate everything, and giving people the belief that what a majority wants defines what is right or wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

Egads, Kulindahr. I hope it wasn't anything serious that kept you away for so long.

Internet connection weirdness, is all:

at home, my computer tells me the wireless signal is strong, in fact that I have a choice of several... but I can't actually connect to any web sites.

Now, over at a friend's place (where I set up the wireless), all is kool.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, your new avatar reminds me of a book I read back in high school, called "When the Roll is Called Up Yonder" -- subtitled, "Don't let life after death keep you from having a life before then".

The title came from a little vignette where at the Pearly Gates, angels come along handing out sweet rolls, and a lot of those waiting refuse one, thinking it's a test... then when they get in to see God, He's munching on sweet rolls.


I liked it because church when I was a kid portrayed God as an old sourpuss, a lot like the elders...

 

[construct]

The poll has closed, but it had dropped off the first page. I didn't feel like reviving it. The result is that almost 80% in this unscientific poll reject the notion of expanding the gay rights movement to include multiple partners. Since the poll has closed, I now feel comfortable announcing my own views in this thread.

I fully approve and support gay folk (and others) exploring creative alternatives to two-partner marriage. However, I don't think the spirit of those explorations seeks legal recognition of those arrangements. I see those arrangements as a rejection of the hierarchal relationship of traditional marriage, a rejection of state meddling in folk's lives, and a reaction to the unavailability of two-partner marriage for gay couples. At least those were the reasons for the radical questioning of traditional marriage in the the gay liberation period of the 1960s and 70s. The need for support for individuals with AIDS in the 1980s began a shift in goals within the gay community.

Thus I oppose expanding the gay rights movement to include the cause of legal protection for multi-partner relationships.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thus I oppose expanding the gay rights movement to include the cause of legal protection for multi-partner relationships.

That makes it not a rights movement at all, because it isn't inclusive of the legitimate aspirations of all the members of the community.

 

[bankside]

Kulindahr, you haven't sustained the case that the aspiration to polygamy is legitimate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, you haven't sustained the case that the aspiration to polygamy is legitimate.

Here's the case:

there are people who desire to enter into such a mutual marriage.


That's the same as the case for two people who love each other to enter into a union. And it can offer the same challenge that gays have offered to the existing order: Who are you to tell us our love is not legitimate, or acceptable?

 

[construct]

That makes it not a rights movement at all, because it isn't inclusive of the legitimate aspirations of all the members of the community.

By "thus" I mean "for these reasons." My reasons are supported not only by my historical and ideological (including feminist and libertarian) reasons but also by several previous posters on this thread. Thus there is a foundation for my view which you have failed to adequately address.

 

[hotatlboi]

That makes it not a rights movement at all, because it isn't inclusive of the legitimate aspirations of all the members of the community.

Again I don't think your definition of polygamy as part of the gay "community" is a correct one. There are just as many (probably more) straight polygamists.

It's a different issue entirely. The fundamental unifying characteristic of LGBT groups is 'type of sex'. Number of partners is separate question. If you are gay and in a multiple partner relationship, then you are obviously in both groups, but that doesn't mean they aren't still separate groups.