Should the gay movement include support for plural marriage?

[Kulindahr]

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

That's a simple one: it has to be a relationship between consenting adults.

Let's take the traditional case, of a man and wives.

The man marries wife A. Later he encounters gal b, and decides he wants her as wife B: first, he has to have the consent of wife A. Let's say that after A gets to know b, she agrees, and now it's man and wives A & B.
Now he meets c. If she is to become wife C, both A and B must approve of her....
And so on.

Since it's a marriage, they're all married to each other; no new spouse can be added without the decision of all concerned.

Now, in today's more open society, in the above situation, wife B might meet a young man she is thrilled with. She'd have every right to bring him home and propose they all marry him, and make him husband 2 -- because there's no head/master to a real marriage; they're all equals.

Then if it becomes husbands 1 & 2, with wives A, B & C, and husband 2 meets a hot stud and wants him in the marriage....

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

You just proved your earlier assertion false: a single kid gets more love, so he doesn't lose out; it's the ones in families with more kids who lose out -- because their parents plainly love them less! If there's one kid, he gets all 100 pieces of his parents' love, but the moment there's another, he suddenly has only fifty pieces. His parents' having another kid means they don't love him as much any more, because there's only so much love to go around.
And parents who have four or five kids are really screwing their children; they only get a small fraction of parental love!

 

[bankside]

Of course not. The gay movement is about equality for gays. The plural marriage movement should make the case for plural marriage. It is actually a little pointless to conflate them. It would be like asking a float full of gay pride dancers at a gay pride parade to argue in favour of intervention in Darfur.

They likely wouldn't know the issues, they likely wouldn't do a good job of stating the case, and they would likely be accused of both appropriating someone else's experience and patronizingly co-opting someone else's fight for self determination.

By the way, I wish we would replace the word "rights" with "privileges" anyway. I don't want equal rights; I want top-tier privileges.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Yes, I get your drift:

you don't believe that people have equal rights to have committed relationships with the people they love.

That's what this boils down to: it isn't for you to judge the quality or validity of someone else's love for others. That's what the religious right does, and it's wrong. This isn't about sociology, it isn't about your speculations about whether someone else's relationship is as of good a quality as yours, it's about people being permitted to commit themselves to the one(s) they love, without needing anyone to give approval before they do so.

It isn't about numbers, it's about people being in charge of their own lives. If seventy people decided to all marry each other, it isn't up to you or anyone else to judge them for it.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

You sound just like the religious right!

It's bigotry, pure and simple: you and they both think they have their reasons, but what it boils down to is that you believe you have some inherent right to tell other people how they should live their lives if they want equality before the law.

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.

How is it irrelevant? It's still love!

And you give yourself away totally here: you say "chosen". What you're really saying is that some people should have the right to choose their lovers... but others shouldn't.
That's the religious right again.

 

[Kulindahr]

But it isn't, divided love and attention is not equal to whole love and attention, won't ever be.

If that's true, any couple who has a second child should be arrested for child abuse.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

If enhancing revenue is sufficient justification for controlling people's personal lives, what limit is there to what government may do?

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way, I wish we would replace the word "rights" with "privileges" anyway. I don't want equal rights; I want top-tier privileges.

Honesty!

 

[Soramaro]

If enhancing revenue is sufficient justification for controlling people's personal lives, what limit is there to what government may do?

It is not enhancing revenue. Not allowing polygamy is stablizing revenue. POlygamy could completly destroying the method by which the government collects its revenue. It then becomes an issue of national stability. You may think that I sound dramatic and that some how I think polyagamy will destroy AMerica I assure that is not what I am gettig at. What I am saying is that allowing polygamy creates a host of problems that America is not equiped to deal with and if they tried to let this problem go unchecked it could have devestating consequences for the Government. That ins just one reason it does it is illegal. TO a certian extent has to do what is in the best intrest of the country and for reason previously stated Polygamy is not in the best interest of the country.

Besides all of what I just said you made the statement like the government does not already control peoples personal lives for the purpose of creating revenue. May I remind you that taxes fits that exact description in the first place. They force us to pay money to the government for fear of federal punishment. I strongly believe that protecting the very means by which our government survives is sufficent justification for putting mingling in our personal choices. There is a line of course but I don't think outlawing polygamy for the sake of the Tax code is crossing it.

 

[Soramaro]

Here in the South, specifically the antebellum South, I'd feel rather confident with a high wager what your position would have been on a certain 'necessary evil'. It's a position you'd most likely share with Mr. Steele, considering his similar argument: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_steele_republicans

I can agree with this... but I remain unconvinced polygamy is a bad thing.

My don't really agree with Mr. Steele. He makes no sense he is saing that if more peopleare allowed to have relationshis it will cause buisnesses to lose money because there are now more possibilites for dependent relationships. People should therefore be agianst it because it is somehow going to cost more money than the if those people can't marry. Well those people can still marry women and that would probably be worse for buisness becasue they can more readily have children and lots of them. That costs more money. Under his argument he should be agianst marriage in general and people having kids becasue it costs more money. His argument does nto apply just to a marriage and really makes no distinction on why marriage between heterosexuals should be legal and marriage between homosexuals should not. It therefore to me makes no sense what so ever.

Polygamy is not neccesarrily a bad thing. I said that polygamy should not be added on to the gay marriage because the argument against it are much more practical and less about intagible feelings and unimportant religions. Gay mrriage arguments are always centered around religion. WIth that in mind taking on the banner of Polygamy alogn with gay marriage would greatly strengthen the arguments against gay marriage and doom the cause all together. I am just being practical if you want to acheive either you need to seperate them greatly.

 

[allthelittlefishies]

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.

Oh come on. There is a major, major difference between someone who is gay, and can't be anyone else, and a man who just wants a lot of wives (the main people who practice polygamy, I'm sure there'd be exceptions.)

Besides, being allowed to marry multiple people would make it easier to take advantage of the system. Say: Woman has insurance and is married to a Man who is covered by her plan. Their friend has no insurance, all she has to do is marry him and voila: insurance for him too.

It's an entirely different argument.

 

[MystikWizard]

You sound just like the religious right!

It's bigotry, pure and simple: you and they both think they have their reasons, but what it boils down to is that you believe you have some inherent right to tell other people how they should live their lives if they want equality before the law.

You can call it whatever you want, but the problem is that we need standards in our society to maintain order and normality. We need this in order to stay at least somewhat civilized.

So you can call me a bigot, and stomp your feet, and all that nonsense. It doesn't phase me. I'm still a voter. So you need to find a better way to try to break through to me and make your case, other than having a temper tantrum and name-calling.

As hard as I have seen Gays fight for Gay Marriage, and bust their asses in doing so, those in favor of polygamy want to just enter the fray, and simply ride the coat-tails of those same people that worked hard for Gay Marriage, and think that it's okay? If you are so much in favor of this, where in the Hell have you been, or where has the Mormon Church been all this time?

You know damn well that you won't have support from the Right on this, and it doesn't appear you even have support from the Left on it, either. It's up to you to make a compelling case for it.

My best advice is to find a better way in presenting it. Good luck.

Yes, I get your drift:

you don't believe that people have equal rights to have committed relationships with the people they love.

That's what this boils down to: it isn't for you to judge the quality or validity of someone else's love for others. That's what the religious right does, and it's wrong. This isn't about sociology, it isn't about your speculations about whether someone else's relationship is as of good a quality as yours, it's about people being permitted to commit themselves to the one(s) they love, without needing anyone to give approval before they do so.

It isn't about numbers, it's about people being in charge of their own lives. If seventy people decided to all marry each other, it isn't up to you or anyone else to judge them for it.

I still haven't gotten one answer from any of the proponents on here for polygamy on where the line is drawn as far as the number of dependents to claim for tax purposes. Why don't we establish this first, and defend the number you choose, including telling us why you picked the number you chose ... and then we can go from there.

Also, is there any way if you want to respond in the future, that you can do so all in one post, as opposed to creating 3 or 4 separate responses? It would just make it a little easier. Much obliged.

 

[White Eagle]

Yes, and those types of comments come from the same people who argue that if we allow "Gay Marriage" "What's next? Someone marrying a goat, or their dog, or their cat?"

The only group that I'm aware of that might be remotely in favor of plural marriages are the Mormons, and we all know how they feel about us.

So, I voted NO in this poll.

I can't even imagine how anyone within the GLBT movement would even consider advocating for such thing, especially when there seem to be so many who still question why we even have a T at the end of that acronym.

Let's at least get to two people of the same sex being afforded the same rights before we start adding others into the mix.

There is no way I would marry my cat. She ignores me enough as it is. Being married would just add to the ignores.
Although my partner and I would like a third, I agree with you with your last sentence.

 

[White Eagle]

No, it should not be added to the Gay marriage issue. THere are many reason why but most of all because the outlawing of polygamy has actual legal reasons behind it an not simply religious ones. The one main issue that I can remeber of the top of my head is taxes. Everyone knows that people get tax exemptions for having dependents. Polygamy allows huge amonts of tax evasion for a person to have 50 wives and hundreds of children and never really have to play any money to the government because of dependent benefits. This possible and highly probable situation would wreak havoc on the way we do Taxes and to allow this would call for an entire overhaul on the tax system that requires more time and effort that could even be calcualted. Imagine the tax system now and how complicated it is and having to redo the whole thing and teach it to people. There are more reasons agains polygamy that have nothing to do with religion like family benefits at work that would all but disappear if Polygamy were allowed. I don't thign anyone wants there family health care benefits taken away from their jobs (if you need me to elaborate on how this would happen I will be mreo than happy to just let me know). There are more but I don't have time to list them.

Besides I truly believe that the way things work in AMerica is that if enough people want something to happen it will happen. That has proven itself to be true throughout our history. There s no reason for Gays to pick up the Polygamy Flag because there are people out there who will pick it up if they want it. THere is no need to join a fight that you don't need to be in.

Edit: Have you ever heard of the Proverb if you chase 2 rabbits you will catch niether. Ultimately I think Plygamy should be left out becasue adding it does neither cause any good. It simply conncets them in a way fatal to both. Niether would be achieved defeating the whole point of the cause in the first place. If you want achive either you have to do so sepreately it is just the way things work especially in our current system of government.

What you say may be very true, and that's an interesting idea. However, saying it is not religion that has ended polygamy I would bet that it is.
You remember when or why the Mormons moved west? One of the problems is the Christians did not want polygamy. So, Mormons moved west and became happy with their wives. Then Christians caught up with them. They made polygamy illegal. The Mormons are still trying to get it back. I would bet again that there are still groups in Utah that have many wives. It is their religion and they should be able to have it back.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is not enhancing revenue. Not allowing polygamy is stablizing revenue. POlygamy could completly destroying the method by which the government collects its revenue. It then becomes an issue of national stability. You may think that I sound dramatic and that some how I think polyagamy will destroy AMerica I assure that is not what I am gettig at. What I am saying is that allowing polygamy creates a host of problems that America is not equiped to deal with and if they tried to let this problem go unchecked it could have devestating consequences for the Government. That ins just one reason it does it is illegal. TO a certian extent has to do what is in the best intrest of the country and for reason previously stated Polygamy is not in the best interest of the country.

If single parents with multiple dependents isn't screwing up the tax system -- and there are lots of those! -- how is multiple parents with multiple dependents going to screw it up? At worst, it would be a temporary, minor headache for a bureaucrat.
A free people is prepared to deal with most anything that comes along.

Besides all of what I just said you made the statement like the government does not already control peoples personal lives for the purpose of creating revenue. May I remind you that taxes fits that exact description in the first place. They force us to pay money to the government for fear of federal punishment. I strongly believe that protecting the very means by which our government survives is sufficent justification for putting mingling in our personal choices. There is a line of course but I don't think outlawing polygamy for the sake of the Tax code is crossing it.

Taxes in and of themselves don't control people's personal lives.

What you're saying, though, is that it's okay to tell people what relationships they're allowed... for the sake of money.
Given that, why not legalize gay marriage... and tax it?

 

[Kulindahr]

My don't really agree with Mr. Steele. He makes no sense he is saing that if more peopleare allowed to have relationshis it will cause buisnesses to lose money because there are now more possibilites for dependent relationships. People should therefore be agianst it because it is somehow going to cost more money than the if those people can't marry. Well those people can still marry women and that would probably be worse for buisness becasue they can more readily have children and lots of them. That costs more money. Under his argument he should be agianst marriage in general and people having kids becasue it costs more money. His argument does nto apply just to a marriage and really makes no distinction on why marriage between heterosexuals should be legal and marriage between homosexuals should not. It therefore to me makes no sense what so ever.

LOL
By his reasoning, I don't see why the government should allow marriage at all!

Oh come on. There is a major, major difference between someone who is gay, and can't be anyone else, and a man who just wants a lot of wives (the main people who practice polygamy, I'm sure there'd be exceptions.)

Besides, being allowed to marry multiple people would make it easier to take advantage of the system. Say: Woman has insurance and is married to a Man who is covered by her plan. Their friend has no insurance, all she has to do is marry him and voila: insurance for him too.

It's an entirely different argument.

What you're saying is that because some will abuse the system, other people shouldn't be allowed to have committed personal relationships with those they love.
That would be a good argument against allowing same-sex marriage: some chick with a good job that gives spousal benefits could hitch up with her friend just to get insurance coverage for her. But wait -- that's a good argument against government-recognized marriage at all -- any two people could get together just for the sake of the benefits!

Liberty always runs the risk of people abusing it. But the other option is to punish the responsible out of fear there just might be some irresponsible people out there. That's just a cowardly form of tyranny, foisted on the immature on the apathetic.

 

[Kulindahr]

You can call it whatever you want, but the problem is that we need standards in our society to maintain order and normality. We need this in order to stay at least somewhat civilized.

Civilized people believe in human rights.
You are opposing human rights.
The invocation of "normality" is a tyrant's way of demanding conformity -- and/or the coward's way of opposing change.

So you can call me a bigot, and stomp your feet, and all that nonsense. It doesn't phase me. I'm still a voter. So you need to find a better way to try to break through to me and make your case, other than having a temper tantrum and name-calling.

I haven't had any temper tantrums or done any name-calling. Your position boils down to forbidding others individual rights and equality before the law, in denying equal recognition to their love just because it doesn't match your private opinion. That's bigotry, plain and simple.

As hard as I have seen Gays fight for Gay Marriage, and bust their asses in doing so, those in favor of polygamy want to just enter the fray, and simply ride the coat-tails of those same people that worked hard for Gay Marriage, and think that it's okay? If you are so much in favor of this, where in the Hell have you been, or where has the Mormon Church been all this time?

Gays once fought for marriage equality, for equal rights before the law for all. Then, cowardly, they caved and decided to give up on liberty and fight for privileges.
Where have I been? trying to keep a roof over my head.
The Mormons? They caved to expediency long ago.

You know damn well that you won't have support from the Right on this, and it doesn't appear you even have support from the Left on it, either. It's up to you to make a compelling case for it.

Here's my compelling case: "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."
If that's not compelling enough, then we no longer have any hope of maintaining freedom, because hardly anyone believes in it any longer. Obviously, few here do.

I still haven't gotten one answer from any of the proponents on here for polygamy on where the line is drawn as far as the number of dependents to claim for tax purposes. Why don't we establish this first, and defend the number you choose, including telling us why you picked the number you chose ... and then we can go from there.

I already answered that: we draw the line at committed relationships between consenting adults, and whatever dependents they have.

Consenting adults now have no limit to the number of dependents they can claim, do they? There's a family in Oregon with over a dozen kids, all but a couple of them adopted, and they're all dependents -- and for every one of them, the family loses ground financially, because the payment for dependents isn't enough to begin to cover the costs.

So why don't you decide how many dependents a single parent should be allowed (there's a local chick with five -- is that too many?), and how many a couple should be allowed. Remember, while you're calculating, that according to a certain argument here, more than one deprives the kid of full parental love.

Heck, that last is an argument in favor of polygamy, on behalf of the kids: the more parents, the more love!

 

[Kulindahr]

What you say may be very true, and that's an interesting idea. However, saying it is not religion that has ended polygamy I would bet that it is.
You remember when or why the Mormons moved west? One of the problems is the Christians did not want polygamy. So, Mormons moved west and became happy with their wives. Then Christians caught up with them. They made polygamy illegal. The Mormons are still trying to get it back. I would bet again that there are still groups in Utah that have many wives. It is their religion and they should be able to have it back.

Yes, there are lots of Mormons with multiple wives -- usually in separate states.

Polygamy was considered "an offense to the Christian religion", though the judges who ruled against religious freedom carefully never said it that way. It was outlawed because of religious discrimination, pure and simple -- part of the same system that restricted government marriage to opposite-gender couples.

That's why I am astounded that so many gays want to continue the system of religious discrimination, instead of just plain trying to dismantle it.

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.

 

[Soramaro]

If single parents with multiple dependents isn't screwing up the tax system -- and there are lots of those! -- how is multiple parents with multiple dependents going to screw it up? At worst, it would be a temporary, minor headache for a bureaucrat.
A free people is prepared to deal with most anything that comes along.


Because those dependents have to be kids and having multile kids ither naturally or through adoption is far far more dificult than going to a court house and asking for a marrigae liscense. Thing of it this wayin the same time it takse for someone to concieve a child a perrson could go to the court house and request 100 mariage lisences and that causes problems. That is more than a minor headache. That is a huge problem and it would destroy the tax system.



Taxes in and of themselves don't control people's personal lives.

What you're saying, though, is that it's okay to tell people what relationships they're allowed... for the sake of money.
Given that, why not legalize gay marriage... and tax it?

Since when is forcing people to pay you money not controling their lives. If I came to you and told you you had to pay me all of your money that you make I am sure you would consider that controlling your life. I think everyone else considers taxes controlling their lives if they did not they would nto make it such a big deal when people talk about raising taxes.

You seem to simplify taxes. You seem to be simplifying how important ttaxes are to our country. If you take taxes away then we have no more government. When considering something like that then unfortunately I would have to say yes the government can dictate relationships when there is sufficient cause. Taxes are not just money it is our countries livelyhood and that is sufficent cause to me. Unfortunately practicality sometimes rules out idealism in our country. We have to find where the balance between pragmatism and idealism.

 

[Kurn]

Traditional Morality just produces more Traditional Immorality.

Just be good out of a free heart.