So what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

[Wafflecakes]

A ban on polygamous marriages is not the same because the ban is applied to all citizens equally. That is not to say whether the ban is right or not but it is not the same as the inequality that is imposed on same sex couples. Such a narrow inequality MUST be justified by a serious and immediate impact on society.

Pretty sure gay marriage isn't allowed for straight people as well. Seems like it is applied to all people equally.

I mean...the points you bring up are absurd.

 

[Stardreamer]

I think we can't say in the one hand that marriage between same sex couples is valid because it is based on love of two consenting adult, and on the other hand say that polygamy where more than two people are in equal love with each other and want to make it official legally are not right.
The difficulty being sure that all party are equally wanting it and that nobody is abused by the "polymarriage".

Love which is not destructive or abusive can express itself in way more than one way, and who could dare say which way is better than another ? (apart from some foolish religious bigots who haven't begun to understand the meaning of concepts laid by so illuminated minds that they had to make parables, symbolic ridden sentences to be meaningful for thousand of years without the need to address problem like car or nuclear fission). What is so difficult to understand in "love thy neighbour like thyself" or "love thy enemies as thy friends" ?

I think arguing the case between the two is apples and oranges, yes they are both fruits but there are some basic differences in the civil rights case between the two.

Currently polymarriage is equally banned to all citizens and there is a debatable argument that allowing polymarriage would be damaging to society. In the same-sex marriage issue, marriage is being denied to a small portion of the population which makes it a distinct civil rights issue above and beyond the social issues.

 

[Stardreamer]

Marriage is a matter of decision by individuals about committing their lives to each other. It is not a creature of government.

But marriage is a part of the structure of societies.

And I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that there are "inherent inequalities" in polygamous marriages.

I've yet to see a polymarriage where all the members of the marriage where equal. I think there have been some rare examples in some cultures but I've never seen it in American/European cultures.

This is just like the dorks who said that gays are free to marry, just like straights -- just find a woman.

That is common conservative twisting of the argument to turn it on its head but it not a valid way of looking at it. It would be like justifying interracial marriage bans because you could have married a white woman. More a way to justify the bigotry than examine the civil rights question.

It isn't applied equally to everybody: it doesn't apply to those not interested in marrying more than one person at all, but it discriminates against those who do.

But no group of citizens are being allowed to marry multiple spouses while other is not. THAT is the main difference between the two issues. NOTE: I am not saying one way or the other if polymarriages should be allowed are not. My basic feelings is they should be allowed unless the state can provide proof that they are damaging to the society. There is a debatable argument that they are due to the rarity of finding such a marriage where the partners are truly equal and therefore stable.

 

[Stardreamer]

Pretty sure gay marriage isn't allowed for straight people as well. Seems like it is applied to all people equally.

I mean...the points you bring up are absurd.

That is a standard conservative reaction to turn the civil rights question into a justification for their bigotry. I prefer to address the issues of how and why the inequality is wrong instead of trying to justify the inequality.

 

[Kulindahr]

But marriage is a part of the structure of societies.

So are all other forms of private association. Just because something's a structure of society doesn't justify government meddling.

This is about basic rights, and choice, and love.

I've yet to see a polymarriage where all the members of the marriage where equal. I think there have been some rare examples in some cultures but I've never seen it in American/European cultures.

I've seen trios where it works just fine. They consider themselves all married to each other -- but the government disses their love while it bestows benefits on that of others (and on more cynical relationships). I know of MMM, MMF, and MFF groupings who get along just fine.

That is common conservative twisting of the argument to turn it on its head but it not a valid way of looking at it. It would be like justifying interracial marriage bans because you could have married a white woman. More a way to justify the bigotry than examine the civil rights question.

You're doing the same thing as the people who say gays can get married, just find a woman. You're telling people who love more than one person that they have equal rights, because they can marry just one person, too.

That's not equal. Equal is being able to marry who you love, to marry whom you wish, as you wish. THAT is the civil rights question.

But no group of citizens are being allowed to marry multiple spouses while other is not. THAT is the main difference between the two issues. NOTE: I am not saying one way or the other if polymarriages should be allowed are not. My basic feelings is they should be allowed unless the state can provide proof that they are damaging to the society. There is a debatable argument that they are due to the rarity of finding such a marriage where the partners are truly equal and therefore stable.

No group of male citizens is being allowed to marry one woman while another is not. The situation is parallel.

 

[yummylongsword]

But no group of citizens are being allowed to marry multiple spouses while other is not. THAT is the main difference between the two issues. NOTE: I am not saying one way or the other if polymarriages should be allowed are not. My basic feelings is they should be allowed unless the state can provide proof that they are damaging to the society. There is a debatable argument that they are due to the rarity of finding such a marriage where the partners are truly equal and therefore stable.

Just to butt in for a second:

Gay people are not prevented from getting married, as long as it's to a member of the opposite sex. They just want to get married to someone of the same sex.

In the same way, polyamorous people are not prevented from getting married, as long as it's to only one person. They just want to get married to more than one person.

Just wanted to point out that, in this particular sense, they are basically the same.

 

[Stardreamer]

So are all other forms of private association. Just because something's a structure of society doesn't justify government meddling.

This is about basic rights, and choice, and love.

Agreed but the debate revolves around society's recognition of certain forms of marriage, if government was not involved there would be no issue. Since the government is involved there is vested interest to ensure that involvement is minimized and based on a solid justification.

I've seen trios where it works just fine. They consider themselves all married to each other -- but the government disses their love while it bestows benefits on that of others (and on more cynical relationships). I know of MMM, MMF, and MFF groupings who get along just fine.

I'm not saying that it is not possible have a stable multi-polar relationship, it is, particularly in a group as small as three but I think it is much harder. I suspect though that those relationships are the exception not the rule. As a civil liberty question though, society should lean towards allowing it at least until there conclusive proof the harm to society is greater than the benefit. Even if the harm is greater though the solution should be aimed at limiting the impact of the disintegration of such relationships, particularly the harm to children involved, than an outright ban.

You're doing the same thing as the people who say gays can get married, just find a woman. You're telling people who love more than one person that they have equal rights, because they can marry just one person, too.

No I'm trying to say that there are distinct differences between the bigotry against same-sex marriage and polymarriage that make slippery slope comparisons of the two limited, particularly I'm noting that the violation of rights against same sex couples is more egregious and demanding of immediate action because the inequality is even greater being narrowly focused on a abused minority and not the population as a whole. It does not even have the fig leaf argument that one could make about polymarriage stability.

That's not equal. Equal is being able to marry who you love, to marry whom you wish, as you wish. THAT is the civil rights question.

Agreed and one society should address and answer.

No group of male citizens is being allowed to marry one woman while another is not. The situation is parallel.

Parallel but not the SAME. The arguments over state recognition (and that is what we are talking about not love) of polymarriage and same sex marriage are similar but different civil rights questions. And yes many of the same factors will go into both debates but there are differences too. Enough that the faulty conservative logic that granting same sex marriage will automatically lead to polymarriage (and even more faultily pedophila, beastiality, incest, etc.) is simply not true.

 

[Stardreamer]

Just to butt in for a second:

Gay people are not prevented from getting married, as long as it's to a member of the opposite sex. They just want to get married to someone of the same sex.

In the same way, polyamorous people are not prevented from getting married, as long as it's to only one person. They just want to get married to more than one person.

Just wanted to point out that, in this particular sense, they are basically the same.

As Kulindahr put it they are parallel but not exactly the same. They are both a violation of the civil rights of those who wish to marry. Aside from that one issue though polyamorous people are not a distinct minority, they occur throughout the population and is not a fixed personality trait like homosexuality. The ban against polymarriage is applied equally against the entire population not a specific minority. Same sex marriage bans single out a narrow minority and deprives them of right that every other group in the society is allowed, that to me is a more egregious violation of civil rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Parallel but not the SAME. The arguments over state recognition (and that is what we are talking about not love) of polymarriage and same sex marriage are similar but different civil rights questions. And yes many of the same factors will go into both debates but there are differences too. Enough that the faulty conservative logic that granting same sex marriage will automatically lead to polymarriage (and even more faultily pedophila, beastiality, incest, etc.) is simply not true.

No -- it's the very same civil rights question: are people allowed to marry whomever they want, or is there a privileged class elevated above the rest?

 

[Stardreamer]

No -- it's the very same civil rights question: are people allowed to marry whomever they want, or is there a privileged class elevated above the rest?

In the same sex case the privileged class would be heterosexuals. There is no uniquely identifiable privileged class in the polymarriage case, unless you want to make it a religious freedom argument with Mormons and Muslims.

 

[yummylongsword]

In the same sex case the privileged class would be heterosexuals. There is no uniquely identifiable privileged class in the polymarriage case, unless you want to make it a religious freedom argument with Mormons and Muslims.

Uh... the uniquely identifiable class is everyone who is content being monogamous, and the repressed are the polygamous people. I agree that it's probably not an inherent preference like homosexuality, but it's still a preference that's quite distinct from the norm.

Homosexuals vs Heterosexuals

Polygamists vs Monogamists

 

[Stardreamer]

Uh... the uniquely identifiable class is everyone who is content being monogamous, and the repressed are the polygamous people. I agree that it's probably not an inherent preference like homosexuality, but it's still a preference that's quite distinct from the norm.

Homosexuals vs Heterosexuals

Polygamists vs Monogamists

There is nothing that uniquely separates out the members of these two groups other than the issue itself. They are the same population and are treated 'equally' in the context of the 'inequality' of the number of people they can marry.

 

[yummylongsword]

There is nothing that uniquely separates out the members of these two groups other than the issue itself. They are the same population and are treated 'equally' in the context of the 'inequality' of the number of people they can marry.

Is there anything that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals other than the "issue" of which gender they prefer?

 

[pat grimshaw]

Fuck polygamy. Give me Polyamory instead.

Polyamory is easier because there's less commitment— unless you're a pregnant woman.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370294

 

[Stardreamer]

Is there anything that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals other than the "issue" of which gender they prefer?

Yes Sexual orientation, which is a specific personality trait, is precisely what separates them out as unique and separate populations. The ability to fall in love with more than one person is not unique to a specific population.

 

[yummylongsword]

Yes Sexual orientation, which is a specific personality trait, is precisely what separates them out as unique and separate populations. The ability to fall in love with more than one person is not unique to a specific population.

Just because they're not a unified, vocal minority doesn't mean they're not there. In our culture, it's not even acknowledged that you can love multiple people at once: you have your life partner, and that's that, and anything else isn't "true love." People that maintain interests in multiple people just perceive themselves as "open," or something.

I mean, in the past, the concept of a monogamous gay relationship didn't exist. Men who had sex with men were just having a fancy on the side, or "exploring," or just taking part in a fetish. It wasn't until recently that the idea of monogamous, hetero-normative gay relationships came in to existence, and coincidentally it was at that same time that the concept of gay people as a unified minority came into the spotlight.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

How does a Biblical definition change exactly? I thought it was the infallible word of God. Maybe it's not that the Bible-bashers haven't caught up yet. Maybe we can't keep up with you guys changing your interpretation of your holy book to suit your every whim. The OT is clear. Male homosexuality is wrong. Polygamy with girls as young as 12 is OK. Force a little girl to marry you and fuck her every which way including loose. She's not your equal. Just don't lay with a man the way you would with a woman!

It's the Living Word of God, meaning that it can change with the ages. Interestingly enough, you can be gay, but only if you're gentile. But please only read the parts of the Bible you wish...

Which is A-OK, according to the Bible. Women were made to please men. Never mind all that evolution bullshit. Women were made from man's rib. What's the problem, are God's laws not ethical enough for you?

Button-mashing for the ethics crowd. Please stop.

1) Evolution is fine, and supported by the Bible.
2) Men may be the so-called head of household, but only on paper. Heaven help the guy that thinks he can actually wear the pants in the family.

So? It's not about what the girls want. It's about what her parents and God want. If she disobeys they can just kill her. Just don't be gay! And don't make fun of Moses for being bald either. God might send some bears to maul you!

Re: Bears: Wrong guy, but thanks for playing. Otherwise, the Bible makes more allowance for mutual love than it does for one person to matter, and the gay thing is limited to one verse in the OT. You, if you actually bothered reading the thing at any point...

No way. The Bible is just as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago.

It's very relevant. Just look at our modes of thought today...

RG
[/QUOTE]

 

[Stardreamer]

Just because they're not a unified, vocal minority doesn't mean they're not there. In our culture, it's not even acknowledged that you can love multiple people at once: you have your life partner, and that's that, and anything else isn't "true love." People that maintain interests in multiple people just perceive themselves as "open," or something.

I mean, in the past, the concept of a monogamous gay relationship didn't exist. Men who had sex with men were just having a fancy on the side, or "exploring," or just taking part in a fetish. It wasn't until recently that the idea of monogamous, hetero-normative gay relationships came in to existence, and coincidentally it was at that same time that the concept of gay people as a unified minority came into the spotlight.

There are some very unified, vocal polygamist groups. Go back and look at what I am saying, I am not saying that polygamists don't exist, I'm saying they are not a unique isolated minority. The ability to fall in love with more than one person exists in every Human being. That our society has a 'true love' mythology that somehow your ability to fall in love is turned off once you get married doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is we choose to not act on our romantic attractions to other people and not pursue them when we form a monogamous relationship. Are you going to say that sexual orientation is a choice? Because that is where you have to go to equate homosexuals and polygamists.

 

[yummylongsword]

There are some very unified, vocal polygamist groups. Go back and look at what I am saying, I am not saying that polygamists don't exist, I'm saying they are not a unique isolated minority. The ability to fall in love with more than one person exists in every Human being. That our society has a 'true love' mythology that somehow your ability to fall in love is turned off once you get married doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is we choose to not act on our romantic attractions to other people and not pursue them when we form a monogamous relationship. Are you going to say that sexual orientation is a choice? Because that is where you have to go to equate homosexuals and polygamists.

I disagree with your statement "The ability to fall in love with more than one person exists in every Human being." Many people would not fall in love again after, for example, the death of their significant other. And far more people would be incapable of falling in love with multiple people at the same time; more often, you fall out of love with one person, and in love with another.

There are, perhaps, degrees to which people may be in love with multiple others at once, in the same way that there are degrees to which one can be homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[Stardreamer]

I disagree with your statement "The ability to fall in love with more than one person exists in every Human being." Many people would not fall in love again after, for example, the death of their significant other. And far more people would be incapable of falling in love with multiple people at the same time; more often, you fall out of love with one person, and in love with another.

There are, perhaps, degrees to which people may be in love with multiple others at once, in the same way that there are degrees to which one can be homosexual or heterosexual.

How readily you fall in love is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Trying to equate the two is silly. I can choose to be monogamous or not, I cannot choose who I am attracted to. By this logic, people who cheat on their spouses can't help themselves and should have a right to do so.