Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[MystikWizard]

I have to again object to this line of reasoning.

You're free to object to it all you want. That certainly doesn't mean by having a tantrum, or by attempting to be PC, that you are going to get any laws passed.

You are imposing your own definition on someone else's relationship. You can't generalize everyone's relationships or why they have them.

Actually, yes I can.

How do you know that multi-partner arrangements are always about sex?

Common sense.

Seems like a pretty arbitrary analysis to me.

Just on a side note, I'm not a very PC person myself ... not at all. You are going to need an extremely compelling argument to get me to change my mind, not just attempting to argue what is and what is not PC, with me.

But, it's called common sense. A man with 10/15 wives ... yeah, sure ... it's all about love there. Not about sex, or anything else.

I posed a question to ICO. How about you answer it. Would you object if you were only allowed to claim 1 and only 1 Dependent if you had multiple husbands/wives?

 

[hotatlboi]

That certainly doesn't mean by having a tantrum, or by attempting to be PC, that you are going to get any laws passed. You should see that already, given the struggle of Gay Marriage alone.

I agree with that, as I've said previously in this thread. And again, I'm not personally advocating here for any laws be passed regarding polygamy. That's not my fight since it doesn't really affect me. I just object to people basing their opinions of whether something should be accepted on their arbitrary personal views and definitions of the relationships of others, since that's the same thing the religious right uses to object to gays.

But, it's called common sense. A man with 10/15 wives ... yeah, sure ... it's all about love there. Not about sex, or anything else.

You didn't say 15 wives initially. A number that many, sure it would be hard to give them all a lot of personal affection. What you said was there was necessarily a parallel between how many wives and how much the relationship was based on sex. That could mean having 2 or 3 wives would mean it was more about sex compared to 1, which I'm not convinced of, since I don't have any experience with those types of relationships and don't really know all the dynamics of them. I think its better to not assume than impose a possible false perception on them.

 

[MystikWizard]

I agree with that, as I've said previously in this thread. And again, I'm not personally advocating here for any laws be passed regarding polygamy. That's not my fight since it doesn't really affect me. I just object to people basing their opinions of whether something should be accepted on their arbitrary personal views and definitions of the relationships of others, since that's the same thing the religious right uses to object to gays.

And I can understand that. However, I know that being Gay is not a choice. I know that from self-experience. So, I don't feel that by being Gay, that one should be punished by not being allowed to marry.

However, polygamy is a choice. That is a fact and can not be disputed. With Gay Marriage, the only thing that is changing is that same sex marriages will be honored. It will still be kept between Two people and no more than two people.

You didn't say 15 wives initially. A number that many, sure it would be hard to give them all a lot of personal affection. What you said was there was necessarily a parallel between how many wives and how much the relationship was based on sex. That could mean having 2 or 3 wives would mean it was more about sex compared to 1, which I'm not convinced of, since I don't have any experience with those types of relationships and don't really know all the dynamics of them.

So what is the cutoff point then, and how do you define what the cutoff point is?

 

[hotatlboi]

Actually, yes I can.

So you are all knowing then? lol

Do you at least have a degree in psychology or some other related field that qualifies you to define all aspects of all relationships?

 

[hotatlboi]

You throw that word around like it actually applies to us. Do you actually know its meaning? How I view polygamy is not an arbitrary thing.

–adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

You've chosen to view a different relationship as inherently unequal based on your own perceptions of how love is given within it, when you really have nothing concrete on which to base that assertion. It's just your intuition of how things would likely work.

 

[MystikWizard]

So you are all knowing then? lol

Do you at least have a degree in psychology or some other related field that qualifies you to define all aspects of all relationships?

No, I simply said that I am free to generalize and use common sense in addressing these issues to formulate my opinions all I want to. You disagreed with that notion. However, I just proved to you that yes, I physically can.

And I have news for you. It is people's opinions that you need to get laws passed around here. By the look of this poll as a sample, you can't even get the Left to support you on this matter. You think you are going to have better luck with the Right?

You want to change opinions, then it is up to you to build the case. And you can be PC all you want to, but ultimately it isn't going to do a damn bit of good. Good luck.

 

[hotatlboi]

So what is the cutoff point then, and how do you define what the cutoff point is?

Good question. If polygamy were to be legalized that would be one important issue that would come up I think.

 

[hotatlboi]

However, I just proved to you that yes, I physically can.

lmao, ok. Yes, you did "do that".

I think you understood what I meant, which is that "doing that" is unreasonable and likely to be an invalid generalization.

 

[MystikWizard]

Good question. If polygamy were to be legalized that would be one important issue that would come up I think.

Well, I think you are kind of putting the cart before the horse, then. These are questions you better sort out first, because I can guarantee you that Polygamy isn't getting passed here, without those questions answered.

I think you should do a separate poll on here and question how many Gays feel as though Polygamy should be legalized in this country.

No. You just mischaractarize my opinion. It is neither arbitrary, subject to my own feelings, intuition, nor anything like it. If you have 100 pieces of love, you can't give 100 pieces each to three different people. To suggest that one might have a bigger capacity for love because they have chosen more lovers is rediculous. Each of those partners receives less individual love and attention, that's just absolute obvious fact. You can't give to multiple people what you give to only one person.

Excellent analysis.

 

[hotatlboi]

No. You just mischaractarize my opinion. It is neither arbitrary, subject to my own feelings, intuition, nor anything like it. If you have 100 pieces of love, you can't give 100 pieces each to three different people. To suggest that one might have a bigger capacity for love because they have chosen more lovers is rediculous, and frankly insulting to me to say that you might have more capacity to love because you have chosen several partners. Each of those partners receives less individual love and attention, that's just absolute obvious fact. You can't give to multiple people what you give to only one person.

That's totally ridiculous. Love is not measured in discrete units that have to be divided up, lol.

According to that logic, families who only have one child necessarily love that child more than families who have two children, because they can give all their love to one child instead of dividing it between two. Yet would you really argue that? I would hope not. There are certainly families with two children where both are loved a tremendous amount and families with one child where he/she is abused.

Marriage/cohabitation is not really any different. You can have a loving, excellent relationship of 3 people or a broken, dysfunctional relationship of 2 people. Someone's capacity to love is not dependent on how many partners they have, its dependent on what kind of person they are.

Your position most certainly is arbitrary, it is subject to your personal feelings and definitions of other people's relationships and it really parallels the philosophical objections to gay marriage of the religious.

 

[MystikWizard]

That's totally ridiculous. Love is not measured in discrete units that have to be divided up, lol.

According to that logic, families who only have one child necessarily love that child more than families who have two children, because they can give all their love to one child instead of dividing it between two. Yet would you really argue that? I would hope not. There are certainly families with two children where both are loved a tremendous amount and families with one child where he/she is abused.

Marriage/cohabitation is not really any different. You can have a loving, excellent relationship of 3 people or a broken, dysfunctional relationship of 2 people. Someone's capacity to love is not dependent on how many partners they have, its dependent on what kind of person they are.

Your position most certainly is arbitrary, it is subject to your personal feelings and definitions of other people's relationships and it really parallels the philosophical objections to gay marriage of the religious.

No, it isn't ridiculous.

Again, are you saying that a man that has 20 wives is going to love each of those wives individually, to the same degree as a man that has one wife?

Again, common sense dictates the more spouses someone has, the less one is able to love each of them equally.

And yes, the same logic applies to children. The more children a couple has, the less likely they are able to love each of them equally. Say we have a couple with 10 children ... all aged from 2-15. Is a couple going to be able to love each and every one of those children equally, and dedicate the appropriate amount of attention to each of them?

The greater the number, the more complicated matters become.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ But you have to get to absurd and certainly nontypical numbers to have that problem.

I'm sure there are FAR more relaionships of no more than 3-4 people than there are 20 or whatever.

Again, using the children analogy (with a more realistic number), are you really going to claim that a family with 2 or 3 children necessarily loves them less than a family with just one? if not, I don't see why marriage would be different.

 

[MystikWizard]

^ But you have to get to absurd and certainly nontypical numbers to have that problem.

I'm sure there are FAR more relaionships of no more than 3-4 people than there are 20 or whatever.

Again, using the children analogy (with a more realistic number), are you really going to claim that a family with 2 or 3 children necessarily loves them less than a family with just one? if not, I don't see why marriage would be different.

Because, my point in getting "absurd" as you call it is to point out the obvious flaw with your argument. You have absolutely no measuring stick and can not point to a concrete number with where your cutoff point would be. And nor can you provide a rational basis for whatever number you would even pick, if you wind up picking one.

As far as number of spouses go:

Let's legalize two spouses.

Someone comes along and says, "Well, we have two. Why not 3?" So legislation passes for 3.

Someone else comes along and says, "Well, the law allows 3. Why not 4?" So legislation for 4 passes.

Someone else comes along and says, "Well, the law allows 4. Why not 5? It's only one more." So 5 passes.

Well, we have 5, why not 6?

Why not 7?

Why not 10?

Why not 20?

.......

And you get my drift.

 

[hotatlboi]

Because, my point in getting "absurd" as you call it is to point out the obvious flaw with your argument. You have absolutely no measuring stick and can not point to a concrete number with where your cutoff point would be. And nor can you provide a rational basis for whatever number you would even pick, if you wind up picking one.

Well, I was not addressing that in the post you replied to, I conceded above that that question would be an important unanswered one if polygamy were to be legalized.

I was referring to Jockboy's assertion that if you had more than one spouse you necessarily loved them less than if you had just one. I consider that totally absurd (and tried to illustrate using the children analogy).

 

[MystikWizard]

Well, I was not addressing that in the post you replied to, I conceded above that that question would be an important unanswered one if polygamy were to be legalized.

I was referring to Jockboy's assertion that if you had more than one spouse you necessarily loved them less than if you had just one. I consider that totally absurd (and tried to illustrate using the children analogy).

I know you tried to. I just don't think it was effective.

Hence, case and point when using extreme examples, like 10 children or so ... then it is a lot more difficult for parents to dedicate themselves to loving their children equally. Now, that may seem like a lot of kids ... but then again poses the question, what exactly is the measuring stick? Where is the cutoff point that we can state that for parents to be able to provide equal love for their children?

Again, common sense dictates that the more you have, the harder it is to dedicate your time and love amongst all of them.

I just think the same applies with spouses.

If people want to practice polygamy and are comfortable, let them. They just won't be recognized by the State.

 

[hotatlboi]

If my position is arbitrary, then so is yours.

Did I say it wasn't? I don't think either of us understands multi-partner relationships well enough to make generalizations about what occurs in them or how they are unequal or any of the things you are saying. That's been my whole point.

 

[hotatlboi]

In many ways kids in big families don't receive as much as love and attention that only children do. But that's completely irrelevant because children are not your chosen lovers.

No it's not irrelevant. Again, you are unable to focus on stylistic similarities of different arguments. The basic principle is exactly the same. more people = less love. Which is by no means a reliable rule. As I said, there are many families with many children where there is much love, and many families with few children where there is not. It's the type of people that determine how love is given, not how many people receive it.

 

[Soramaro]

No tax benefit overrides the cost of living. The argument that polygamy would somehow be devastating to the tax code is inefficient too---the tax code needs to be overhauled anyway. It also overlooks all those who get married to a so-called "The One" for the same purposes. It's also an entirely subjective argument that only two people can share some unquantifiable and unqualitative assertion and any combination higher cannot. That argument can easily apply to only two people of the opposite sex, and there is even the argument that the tax code requires offspring, to which a same sex couple aren't 'naturally' allowed to produce.

No, not only do I not buy your argument for my personal perspective, but more importantly I fail to see it as valid for public policy. You can feel that way all you want, however. I don't care to change your mind. I do care to keep you from forcing your beliefs on the rest of us.

THough this may be true and I stress the word may because I don't know who is saying it is broken it still does not justify completely breaking the system. Though tax benefits might not able to off set cost of living it enough to break the very foundation of our countries revenue system. That is enought keep it illegal. As to offspring having children or even adopting multiple children is much harder to do than going to a court house and getting issued multiple marriage liscenses. In any case the government can take children away from unfit parents or refuse to let them adopt. It can't force people to divorce. It has nor regulation over marriage once it is final. It is important that Ploygamy has many far reaching consequences in a practical sense that does not apply to Gay marriage and bring thos on the gay marriage issue is a really bad idea in my opinion.

 

[Kulindahr]

A non-sequitur. Children are not unrelated to you.

So...
if the object of your love isn't related to you, your love is finite and subject to arithmetic, but if the object of your love is related to you, your love is infinite and can be spread around?

And I can understand that. However, I know that being Gay is not a choice. I know that from self-experience. So, I don't feel that by being Gay, that one should be punished by not being allowed to marry.

However, polygamy is a choice. That is a fact and can not be disputed. With Gay Marriage, the only thing that is changing is that same sex marriages will be honored. It will still be kept between Two people and no more than two people.

Is love a choice?


If polygamy is a choice, so is marriage of any kind -- so why have marriage legal at all?

 

[Kulindahr]

And I have news for you. It is people's opinions that you need to get laws passed around here. By the look of this poll as a sample, you can't even get the Left to support you on this matter. You think you are going to have better luck with the Right?

That just shows that neither the Left nor the Right are interested in liberty, just in getting things they want.