CaptainCourtesy - Originally posted 4/4/2009
You are wrong, dana. There is more of a difference between polygamy and GM than just what Zyph posted. The government sanctions marriage for a variety of reasons...
Wrong, right here. The Government does not sanction marriage, it only recognizes it within a legal framework, and provides the limitations through that framework. Marriage, in and of itself, requires no sanction from anyone, other than those participating in the marriage. Recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is what the State does, and it goes no further than that.
First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex.
This is what identifies them as individuals, sexually, and spiritually. I agree with this sentiment.
Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation.
That is part of it, but it is not all of it.
Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion
I'm with ya so far..
Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists.
This is wrong. Firstly, marriage does not need to benefit that state, it need only to be able to qualify for recognition, but that recognition is not dependant on any arbitrary judgment as to any benefit marriage may, or may not impart on the state. Secondly, the bonds that form from marriage, and the families that arise from them, historically, come before the state. In essence, they made the state, and without it, the state ceases to exist.
However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation
No, but there is a definable identity associated with polygamists. In fact, a polygamist cannot be a polygamists unless they show affection, emotion, love and attraction to more than one other individual. Sexual orientation is a protected right in CA, however, I've argued that it is identity that is what should be protected, as identity encompasses a more broad interpretation of the individual. By protecting ones sexual, and spiritual identity, among other things, the state can include all categories, so long as the marriage commitment does not violate any protections afforded other classes.
However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.
First of all, given the above, I'm not even sure you've made an argument for sexual orientation as a consideration for recognition of marriage?
Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation.
I would criticize two things here. First, there is no limitation on marriage that purports to require a benefit for the state in order for marriage to be recognized. Secondly, research does not show. Check that, the research that exists currently does not give any conclusive evidence one way or the other as to the efficacy of homosexual marriage, nor of raising children.
This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency
That is utter none sense. Polygamists are not uniquely prone to any of those human emotions, and to prove otherwise would require you to delve deep into the science-light, that is psychology, and frankly it, no matter what you find, would seem uncompelling to me, and easily debatable.
Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures
That's a sweeping generality, and not even remotely provable. Psychology, can be attributed to everything we do, hardly a justification for your assertion. But that's a different topic..
neither can human psychology be separated from this issue
Why would it need to be, "separated", exactly?
What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry
Let me see if I have this right. You think "jealousy and rivalry" are the cause for a man, or a woman to cheat on their spouse? I'm sorry but that is absurd..
In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions.
See this is why I ignored your psycho babble portion of your post. It's none sense, and not even remotely provable. Not to mention that none of it is enough for a state to deny marriage to the polygamists.
With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained
You do realize that human anthropology disagrees with you? In fact, monogamy is relative newcomer to the human existence. Polygamy, and variations of it, existed for eons, well before the concept of monogamy, so that kind of throws a wrench into that theory, eh?
Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children
In what way? Can you be specific?
We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
Yes it does in divorce, but what does that have to do with a happy, and healthy, intact polygamist family?
Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy
How about 4.5 million years of data?
All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.
Benefits have nothing to do with it, period!
Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
No, it's entirely relevant.
Tim-
