Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[construct]

I think we've ridden this hobby-horse long enough. It's time to count noses. What say you?

This poll will close in fourteen days.

 

[crzyrazn]

No. The gay movement for equal rights should be solely committed to advancing legal rights and protection for same-sex marriage. Polygamy is another issue to be dealt with by proponents of such arrangements. Polygamy has no foundation in the cause of marriage equality when related to same-sex marriage. Besides the practical argument against including support for polygamy among the gay movement, socially polygamy is not favored kindly, thus could sabotage the progress hard won by gay marriage proponents. There is alot of argument that could be had over this question, polygamy alone could span hundreds of volumes with arguments for and against it, but polygamy rights has no place in gay marriage advancement.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Absolutely not. Marriage should be between just two people. Its called keep your dick in your pants and be committed to one person.

 

[CaptainRush]

The whole point of marriage is for two people to spend their life together, in most areas those two people are meant to be a man and a women.

 

[Kulindahr]

If all forms of marriage aren't fought for, what you're getting isn't equality, but privileges. All that gay marriage accomplishes is joining a privileged class which gets goodies from the government that others do not.

MLK went with the saying that if one man isn't free, none are -- so by getting gay marriage, you're not getting freedom, because you're just becoming part of the oppressing class.

 

[Kulindahr]

The whole point of marriage is for two people to spend their life together, in most areas those two people are meant to be a man and a women.

That's one particular view -- but to insist on it is to discriminate on the basis of religion, and to deny equality of freedom of association.
In other words, it's to deny equality before the law to some who don't conform to your way of thinking.

It's absolutely no different than the blacks who are saying, "The whole point of marriage is for a man and a woman to spend their life together" -- and gays can't grasp why blacks aren't supporting gay civil rights.
It's just another kind of bigotry.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope. For many reasons, not the least of which is that adding that issue to the debate would doom any forward motion towards equality.

But to not add it is to shut off liberty for those who don't yet have it; it's to endorse the existing religious discrimination.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

No. This isn´t the seventies. The LGBT - rights movement should tackle its own specific issues.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. This isn´t the seventies. The LGBT - rights movement should tackle its own specific issues.

So it's the selfish 00s now?

When you fight for rights, you should fight for equal rights for all -- otherwise you're lying to yourself, because all you want is privileges.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

No no no.

But every time someone opposes same-sex marriage, we should accuse them of being on the payroll of the LDS cult and being in favor of polygamy.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

So it's the selfish 00s now?

When you fight for rights, you should fight for equal rights for all -- otherwise you're lying to yourself, because all you want is privileges.

If the gay movement in the U.S.A. would take a little bit less than about everything on its plate, it might actually succeed for a change.

 

[construct]

Funny, I don't recall this ever coming up among serious people. I know the extremist right always try to inject this nonsense as a way of mocking and trvializing the true issue: equality.

Well, I know I've spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue, and I'd just as soon get off of my own hobby-horse, I guess. I hope that doesn't exclude me from the category of serious people.

My main intent is to find out the extent of unformed opinion, i.e. people who might be swayed by further discussion, and if there are very few, the strength of opinion on each side of the debate.

 

[MystikWizard]

Absolutely not.

Gay Marriage alone, is considered a radical enough change, as it is. Making marriage plural would doom the Gay Marriage movement to complete failure. Hands down.

Besides any of that, I personally do not agree with polygamy. Marriage should be strictly between two people, and only two people.

 

[Just_Believe18]

There is no plural marriage culture in the gay community. You have rare exceptions, but there is no societal drive to seek this type of extended family.

 

[sabot3ur]

don't care.

the polygamists can campaign for their own equality, when they're done raping 13 year olds and campaigning against ours.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

It's absolutely no different than the blacks who are saying, "The whole point of marriage is for a man and a woman to spend their life together" -- and gays can't grasp why blacks aren't supporting gay civil rights.
It's just another kind of bigotry.

What do blacks have to do with this?

 

[hotatlboi]

If all forms of marriage aren't fought for, what you're getting isn't equality, but privileges. All that gay marriage accomplishes is joining a privileged class which gets goodies from the government that others do not.

Personally, I think there is a mixing of two issues here.

You advocate that people should be open to all forms of marriage, and maybe that is true. Personally I don't have any problem with polygamy.

But what I don't understand is why you think it is the gay community that has to achieve acceptance of polygamy for you. As someone already said, there isn't really more of a culture of polygamy in the gay community than there is in the straight community. There are gay people with more than one partner and straight people with more than one. I doubt that gay people comprise a majority of the total.

I kind of feel like you are being unreasonable in asking for your issue to be joined to the gay marriage or other gay rights debate when its really another issue entirely. Most gay people do not care about polygamy enough one way or the other to be politically active about it.

I've described this in various ways but just to use another example, suppose someone was campaigning to save the elephant from extinction. If you came to them and said "well you just don't care about animals unless you fight to protect the tiger from extinction as well". That person may like tigers and have no problem with that movement, but it's just not "their" interest enough to make them part of that effort.

Requiring polygamy to be accepted at the same time as gay marriage will hurt progress on that front, as several other people have pointed out. I would suggest that if you want polygamy to be accepted, that you concentrate your efforts on forming a polygamist group lobby, not trying to graft yourself onto the fight for gay rights.

 

[White Eagle]

My partner and I would like a 3rd partner, but I don't think it should be in the gay movement until we receive equality. It's hard enough getting enough people to vote for us.

 

[hotatlboi]

It would be an affront to the dignity of all persons who commit themselves and their lives to the mutual love and support of one person. It shouldn't be the case that you can have under law, that same relationship with as many people as you would like. The focus and attention that one person devotes to only one other person is admirable and is to be encouraged.

Now personally, I think that is a very weak argument and really parallels the anti-gay marriage arguments. Let me rephrase.

"It would be an affront to the dignity of all persons who commit themselves and their lives to the love and support of a traditional wife and family. It shouldn't be the case that you can have under the law, the same relationship with someone of the same sex. The historical institution of marriage and what it means is admirable and is to be encouraged and preserved."

An "affront to the dignity of traditional marriage" is a pretty good succinct summation of most of the opposition to gay marriage.

 

[hotatlboi]

That's just rediculous. It in no way parallels any argument to "traditional marriage" proponents.

Yeah it does, and I pointed out how. Now, I'm not saying logically it does, I do think there is certainly a difference. I'm saying the reasoning people use to base opposition to it does.

But you cannot tell me that what you want to share with multiple people is the same as what I share with one person!

Ok first, I have no desire to be in a multi person relationship, so that's not where I'm coming from on this unlike Kuli.

But I think that statement is rather short sighted.

Have you ever been in a loving committed relationship with more than one person? If not, how can you say for sure that you know what more than two people share could never be the same as what you share with one other person?