• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?

  • Total voters
    62
Zyphlin said:
The law can't discriminate against religion...IE you can't allow a Catholic to get married but a Mormon can't.

It is not about religious beliefs being given government benefit. Marriage, under the government, is 100% non-religious. It is a secular contract under a secular government. If three radical Mormon's attempted to get married under their church and never once attempted to make any legal notation of it, there's no problem there. If the government someone did something to them for their private religious beliefs, then there'd be a constitutional issue. However, there's no discrimination in not letting them be recognized legally as such, because the governments marriage is not adhering to any particular religion.
Click to expand...

He is not listening so I don't know why you are bothering.
 
Blackdog said:
The "it's to complicated" argument has been refuted using historical precedent, sorry will not float.
Click to expand...

You realize that just saying it doesn't make it true. Actual arguments have been put forth showing why you're wrong. All you've done is essentially go "BUT THE BLACKS", showing absolutely no way how it references this at all, and then declared yourself a winner.
 
Blackdog said:
But it is OK to discriminate as long as you agree with it. Everyone is in agreement with that so far.
Click to expand...

And here is where you're showing you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the law, absolutely ignoring EVERYONES posts, or just playing dumb.

NO ONE is saying you cant discriminate "as long as you agree with it".

They are saying its okay to discriminate as long as it fits within the confines of the rules set forth from the Equal Protection Clause and the constitutional rulings based on it. This has been explained to you in general terms, in more specific terms, and even fully and utterly laid out to you. If you want to continue to put forward this BS, be my guest, but its just making you look nothing but foolish and stubborn rather than someone whose in the least attempting any kind of legitimate debate. Its been restated to you over and over again with you not bothering to even address its substance once.
 
Zyphlin said:
Point me where I said laws weren't allowed to be complicated.
Click to expand...

Never said that.

Zyphlin said:
I just simply stated that not needlessly entering into a complicated and resource draining action was a legitimate state interest. That is different then saying the government can never enter into complicated and resource draining actions.
Click to expand...

I know. This however does not have anything to do with you accusing me of saying "Obama care has zero to do with the equal protection clause nor discrimination under the law and its constitutionality nor with the levels of scrutiny under the 14th amendment." You have yet to point out where I said it?

Zyphlin said:
See, if you're arguing for a law to be passed legalizing polygamy...well, go ahead. I'm all for you doing that, I'm all for people trying to pass a law to make gay marriage legalized. My arguments got jack **** to do with a law, its got to do with constitutionality. To get the law changed based on discrimination its gotta not reach the level of scrutiny needed. The fact that LAWS are passed that are complicated and resource draining is irrelevant to that because the very nature of them passing deems them necessary. If you're needing the courts to overturn it then the necessity is not nearly as high. Now, if this was talking about race...it wouldn't matter, because it'd still not meet the level of scrutiny needed. But since polygamist is bottom tier at best, there just needs to be a rational reason put forth of a legitimate state interest...and not completely rewriting huge amounts of law IS a legitimate interest of the state.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It would be covered under religion. That is higher than any low tier "gender" argument.

Zyphlin said:
To put it another way. Is it in the states interest...not asking if its fair, if its right, if its okay, if you agree, if its mean, if its hateful, if its bigoted, or anything else...is it in the states interest to not have to rewrite heaps of legal and tax law?
Click to expand...

If it ends discrimination, yes.

Zyphlin said:
If your answer is "no", its not in the states interest...I'd love an explanation specificlaly of how.

Far more proof is available suggesting that's likely the case then there is for polygamy being as such, which is why I said that there's a far more likely chance of one of them becoming higher tier in the future then the other.

My argument has not, will not, and does not have anything to do with sexual orientation in regards to it. While I recognize a higher likelihood that it will be added to a higher level of scrutiny under the EPC at some time sooner than polygamy would be...its not NOW. So my arguments NOW, under constitutional law as it stands NOW, has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with Sex.
Click to expand...

You already said all of this already. I understand, no need to repeat. It does not change anything though.

Zyphlin said:
No, I have an argument. You are confusing my posts apparently with your own, which is no real argument, but rather a worthless parody of other peoples arguments.
Click to expand...

OK, if you think so.
 
CriticalThought said:
First off, had you not intentionally ignored my post on how polygamy is detrimental to society, you would not have made the ignorant statement you made above.

Second, I was making an argument as to why same sex marriage was Constitutional, not polygamy. Had you read my post you would realized such, but it seems you have become an antagonist rather than a legitimate debater.
Click to expand...

I am sorry I was debating 3 people at the same time. Forgive me for not noticing your post among the others at the very bottom of the page when we were on another. :roll:

I know exactly what you were saying. Had I been talking about SSM and not polygamy, you may have had a point. :lol:
 
CriticalThought said:
Once again, I pointed out exactly why polygamy is objectively detrimental to society and same sex marriage is not. You simply intentionally ignored the post because it challenged your rant.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/88869-same-sex-marriage-really-91.html#post1059226140
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence not required. I already know most of the arguments for and against. You are talking about small populations as well. It worked before and it is working in other nations.
 
Blackdog said:
Anecdotal evidence not required. I already know most of the arguments for and against. You are talking about small populations as well. It worked before and it is working in other nations.
Click to expand...

It worked before? Never in American history has polygamy been legal in the United States. What you are referring to as "working" existed in ancient civilizations, primitive cultures, or among the wealthiest in male dominated Muslim societies. There is no standard by which to say it has worked or ever will work in America.

And if by "work" in Muslim societies, you mean women are pouring gasoline on themselves and trying to burn themselves alive to avoid being married into polygamous groups...then yeah, I guess it worked.
 
Last edited:
Here is a post the I wrote about 2 years ago, identifying why polygamy is completely dissimilar to GM and why it should not be lega:

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. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. 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. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. 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.

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. 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. 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, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. 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. 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. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

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.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
Click to expand...
 
CriticalThought said:
It worked before? Never in American history has polygamy been legal in the United States.
Click to expand...

I never said it did.

CriticalThought said:
What you are referring to as "working" existed in ancient civilizations, primitive cultures, or among the wealthiest in male dominated Muslim societies. There is no standard by which to say it has worked or ever will work in America.
Click to expand...

They made it work. I guess we are too stupid in the US? :lol:

CriticalThought said:
And if by "work" in Muslim societies, you mean women are pouring gasoline on themselves and trying to burn themselves alive to avoid being married into polygamous groups...then yeah, I guess it worked.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole as usual.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. 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. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. 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.
Click to expand...

It is different and does not involve "sexuality." So what? As if the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals has anything to do with polygamy?

CaptainCourtesy said:
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. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits.
Click to expand...

"Some cultures value monogamy as an ideal form of family organization. However, many cultures prefer other forms of family organization. Anthropological data suggests a majority of societies prefer polygamous marriage as a cultural ideal. - Value of monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Large families are better for child rearing, this is a fact.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. 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, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. 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. 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. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
Click to expand...

So we should deny it because something mite go wrong? No that is not good enough at all. If this were the case we would have no laws.

So because you are guessing this mite happen, as no proof has been presented or I think exist as I looked. Children will be negatively affected? This is no better than the "it's for the children" argument many liberals use to pass sweeping bad legislation.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.
Click to expand...

Not true...

The Bedouin Arab adolescents fell into two groups: (a) adolescents in monogamous family structures and (b) adolescents in polygamous family structures. The findings of the first study suggest that the two groups did not differ significantly in the majority of the assessed variables, even though there were significant differences obtained between groups for 4 of the 13 assessed variables. The two groups did not differ significantly in the second study. Results were discussed in terms of their cultural and developmental significance - The Relationship between Monogamous/Polygamous Family Structure and the Mental Health of Bedouin Arab Adolescents

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Norway's Directorate of Immigration has reported that, despite the illegality of polygamy in Norway, it is becoming prevalent, since Norway liberalized the "marriage" laws by allowing legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Now Norwegian men travel abroad to meet and marry women, where polygamy is legal. Then they bring their new "wives" to Norway to live together under legal civil unions, in one, happy, polygamous harem.

The Netherlands is experiencing this problem as well. In 2005, the government gave a polygamous union to a Dutch man and two women. The male in the union claims that, since both of his "wives" are bi-sexual, there is no jealousy between them - they're all just happily loving one another.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
Click to expand...

Your information is out dated.
 
Blackdog said:
They made it work. I guess we are too stupid in the US?
Click to expand...

No, we just recognize that women are people too. I don't understand the whole polygamy deflect. We've seen the effects of polygamy and the societies which grow up around it to know that it is not something which can be supported in the US due to the innate inequalities and oppression from the system.

Besides, Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till they banned polygamy; so there's precedent on that front.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
No, we just recognize that women are people too. I don't understand the whole polygamy deflect. We've seen the effects of polygamy and the societies which grow up around it to know that it is not something which can be supported in the US due to the innate inequalities and oppression from the system.
Click to expand...

This has little to do with how it would be implemented in the US. Has nothing at all to do with women not being able to marry multiple husbands. In fact this has already cropped up in the US.

Ikari said:
Besides, Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till they banned polygamy; so there's precedent on that front.
Click to expand...

The fact that same sex marriage has been banned in the whole country at one time is not a precedent?

Either way, the past is rampant with discrimination, so that is not a good precedent.
 
Blackdog said:
The "it's to complicated" argument has been refuted using historical precedent, sorry will not float.


So what?


Why? You don't want equality for everyone. You said it is OK to discriminate in certain circumstance. How is that equality for everyone???
Click to expand...

Show me where exactly polygamy has worked, from a legal standpoint, in the same way that two person works in the US. Show societies that have polygamy where everyone in the marriage has equal rights. No coercion on anyone's part and the law recognizes everyone in the marriages as equal parts of the marriage and equal parts if the marriage doesn't work. Can the previous wives/husbands truly object to their spouse taking on another wife/husband?

And would it truly be an equal, non-discriminating setup if the first marriage always took precedent over the other marriages? Wouldn't that cause the subsequent marriages after the first to be automatically unequal, since the one partner that was involved in the many marriages would have say about such things as medical decisions for his/her partner, but the partner would not have that say in their spouse's place?

And very few societies, if any, have actually had a three or more way marriage at once, where there are 3 or more people getting married at one time. There are polyamorous relationships out there that would also benefit from polygamy. But such marriages would cause a lot of issues also. Including, not identifying at all which person actually does have

Also, you are really being dishonest about what my argument is. I have said that we should figure out a way to ensure that people who truly want to be involved in polygamy should have a way to get a limited kinship granted to their other spouse (to ensure that they can actually get things like medical visitation and be protected in the case of a breakup of the relationship where they are the one getting out). Legal marriage will not cover this as it is now. It would require a large change to many of the rules/laws governing marriage. Which is why such relationships should be advocating legal recognition that is not the same as two person marriages. In the mean time, while these things are being worked out/set up, it is quite simple to change marriage to include same sex couples.

BTW, it is not a genuine argument that polygamy would fall under religious discrimination, because the state not providing a multiperson contract or allowing people to enter into more than one contract at a time in no way affects how they practice their religion. Even same sex couples who are married religiously cannot claim such a thing. They are not being arrested for practicing polygamy (although some are for exploiting children during the practice, but that is a different issue). They are just denied legal recognition because the number of people wanting to enter into the relationship is not compatible with the current laws/rules for legal marriage.
 
Blackdog said:
This has little to do with how it would be implemented in the US. Has nothing at all to do with women not being able to marry multiple husbands. In fact this has already cropped up in the US.
Click to expand...

How polygamy would be implemented in this country has everything to do with why the reasons that it is discriminated against are different than why same sex marriage is discriminated against. The implementation of same sex marriage is much easier than implementing polygamy. Polygamy is possible, in a limited form, but cannot be done under the current marriage rules. If someone absolutely wants to get polygamy instituted legally here, then they need to present a plan on how it would work without exploiting anyone in the marriage and ensuring that everyone is treated fair. It should also cover how to uniformly handle legal issues covered by the current marriage laws that would be an issue with more than two people involved. Same sex marriage advocates have already provided how legal marriage can be changed to work for them. It is the responsibility of the other groups that want such "equality" to argue for their side.
 
roguenuke said:
Show me where exactly polygamy has worked, from a legal standpoint, in the same way that two person works in the US. Show societies that have polygamy where everyone in the marriage has equal rights. No coercion on anyone's part and the law recognizes everyone in the marriages as equal parts of the marriage and equal parts if the marriage doesn't work. Can the previous wives/husbands truly object to their spouse taking on another wife/husband?
Click to expand...

Most ancient society's as humans were polygamists at one time. In modern times it is recognized in...

Kenya
South Africa
Sudan
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Oman
UAE
Qatar
Bahrain
Egypt
Kuwait
Iraq
Iran

The list goes on but you get the idea.

The rest is for the individuals to decide who want to enter into the arrangement, not you.

roguenuke said:
And would it truly be an equal, non-discriminating setup if the first marriage always took precedent over the other marriages? Wouldn't that cause the subsequent marriages after the first to be automatically unequal, since the one partner that was involved in the many marriages would have say about such things as medical decisions for his/her partner, but the partner would not have that say in their spouse's place?
Click to expand...

Again that would be up to the party's involved. You are an adult, if you don't want to be a second or 3rd wife, don't.

roguenuke said:
And very few societies, if any, have actually had a three or more way marriage at once, where there are 3 or more people getting married at one time. There are polyamorous relationships out there that would also benefit from polygamy. But such marriages would cause a lot of issues also. Including, not identifying at all which person actually does have
Click to expand...

The first part of your statement is not true as it was the natural state of marriage in ancient times and for a large majority of natives in China, Africa and India for example.

The amount of issues I have already shown to be irrelevant. We amended the constitution for other civil rights. Not a factor.

roguenuke said:
Also, you are really being dishonest about what my argument is. I have said that we should figure out a way to ensure that people who truly want to be involved in polygamy should have a way to get a limited kinship granted to their other spouse (to ensure that they can actually get things like medical visitation and be protected in the case of a breakup of the relationship where they are the one getting out).
Click to expand...

That came after my initial response. You changed your tune when you realized your argument was no good. I can probably find the post if you like?

Again you want it "separate but equal" and that as we know is not good enough.

roguenuke said:
Legal marriage will not cover this as it is now. It would require a large change to many of the rules/laws governing marriage. Which is why such relationships should be advocating legal recognition that is not the same as two person marriages. In the mean time, while these things are being worked out/set up, it is quite simple to change marriage to include same sex couples.
Click to expand...

This is about the arguments used against those who do not want marriage redefined.

I may not agree, but this one paragraph is about the best argument I have heard in this thread. Realistically speaking I don't see that happening.

roguenuke said:
BTW, it is not a genuine argument that polygamy would fall under religious discrimination, because the state not providing a multiperson contract or allowing people to enter into more than one contract at a time in no way affects how they practice their religion. Even same sex couples who are married religiously cannot claim such a thing. They are not being arrested for practicing polygamy (although some are for exploiting children during the practice, but that is a different issue). They are just denied legal recognition because the number of people wanting to enter into the relationship is not compatible with the current laws/rules for legal marriage.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Certain religions as part of the practice of that religion allow and encourage multiple wifes etc. It is legal in Muslim country's for a reason. So no your argument is not valid.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
How polygamy would be implemented in this country has everything to do with why the reasons that it is discriminated against are different than why same sex marriage is discriminated against. The implementation of same sex marriage is much easier than implementing polygamy. Polygamy is possible, in a limited form, but cannot be done under the current marriage rules. If someone absolutely wants to get polygamy instituted legally here, then they need to present a plan on how it would work without exploiting anyone in the marriage and ensuring that everyone is treated fair. It should also cover how to uniformly handle legal issues covered by the current marriage laws that would be an issue with more than two people involved. Same sex marriage advocates have already provided how legal marriage can be changed to work for them. It is the responsibility of the other groups that want such "equality" to argue for their side.
Click to expand...

So what? It would take more work. Oh no! Already covered this.
 
Blackdog said:
Most ancient society's as humans were polygamists at one time. In modern times it is recognized in...

Kenya
South Africa
Sudan
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Oman
UAE
Qatar
Bahrain
Egypt
Kuwait
Iraq
Iran

The list goes on but you get the idea.

The rest is for the individuals to decide who want to enter into the arrangement, not you.



Again that would be up to the party's involved. You are an adult, if you don't want to be a second or 3rd wife, don't.



The first part of your statement is not true as it was the natural state of marriage in ancient times and for a large majority of natives in China, Africa and India for example.

The amount of issues I have already shown to be irrelevant. We amended the constitution for other civil rights. Not a factor.



That came after my initial response. You changed your tune when you realized your argument was no good. I can probably find the post if you like?

Again you want it "separate but equal" and that as we know is not good enough.



This is about the arguments used against those who do not want marriage redefined.

I may not agree, but this one paragraph is about the best argument I have heard in this thread. Realistically speaking I don't see that happening.



I disagree. Certain religions as part of the practice of that religion allow and encourage multiple wifes etc. It is legal in Muslim country's for a reason. So no your argument is not valid.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the marriage contract is to set up legal rights/responsibilities now. We, in the US, want people to be treated equally. Most of those countries do not feel that a woman actually does have the right to refuse to marry or they are pressured into the marriage by their family/religion. This is even true for the polygamy that we see in the US with the FLDS.

I have argued that polygamy should be legal in some form this whole time, but that it cannot be argued as the same thing as same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is not that different than opposite sex marriage, nor does it require that new laws be made to ensure that people are not exploited or cheated by the arrangement. And many of the arguments against same sex marriage are not the same arguments against polygamy. Polygamy has a lot more arguments against it than same sex marriage does. Arguments that need to be seriously considered prior to allowing any form of polygamy.

And the religion discrimination argument only works if you also consider that same religious argument for those same sex couples who get a religious marriage. Either it works for both, or it works for neither since neither needs the legal recognition to actually practice their religion the way they want without government interference.
 
roguenuke said:
So same sex marriage first, as we work out polygamy. Where's the problem then?
Click to expand...

I never said I had a problem with this?

It was the only argument that avoids the hypocrisy of all the others.

You have passed the test young Padwan.
 
roguenuke said:
The purpose of the marriage contract is to set up legal rights/responsibilities now. We, in the US, want people to be treated equally. Most of those countries do not feel that a woman actually does have the right to refuse to marry or they are pressured into the marriage by their family/religion. This is even true for the polygamy that we see in the US with the FLDS.

I have argued that polygamy should be legal in some form this whole time, but that it cannot be argued as the same thing as same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is not that different than opposite sex marriage, nor does it require that new laws be made to ensure that people are not exploited or cheated by the arrangement. And many of the arguments against same sex marriage are not the same arguments against polygamy. Polygamy has a lot more arguments against it than same sex marriage does. Arguments that need to be seriously considered prior to allowing any form of polygamy.

And the religion discrimination argument only works if you also consider that same religious argument for those same sex couples who get a religious marriage. Either it works for both, or it works for neither since neither needs the legal recognition to actually practice their religion the way they want without government interference.
Click to expand...

Not that this addressed any of my points, but lets go with this.

Some of the country's do, some don't but it is irrelevant as the law in the US would be different.

The separate but equal argument does not fly under the law.

The religious argument is just as valid under the 14th amendment.
 
Personally, I think polygamy would only work if there were some fairly major shifts in our society, at the least, and most probably in human nature itself.

In all cases I can think of where polygamous marriages or unions/families and the like have existed, the female is relegated to a lesser status than the male.

If someone can give me an example of a polygamous (or polyandrous) setup wherein all members are equal, and get equal financial and otherwise shares out of it, I may consider changing my mind.

Hell, even in fictional representations I’ve read of polygamous setups, the female has been relegated to a lesser status.

I can possibly see a polygamous relationship working, but only if the individuals involved are exceptions, not being subject (or being able to overcome/bypass) the natural human natures which would normally be involved.
 
Blackdog said:
This has little to do with how it would be implemented in the US. Has nothing at all to do with women not being able to marry multiple husbands. In fact this has already cropped up in the US.
Click to expand...

Those crazies in Arizona show us how it will be implemented. There's enough historical data to show the innate oppressive nature of polygamy.

Blackdog said:
The fact that same sex marriage has been banned in the whole country at one time is not a precedent?
Click to expand...

There was never a time when we demanded a potential State remove Same Sex Marriage in order to enter the Union.
 
Ikari said:
Those crazies in Arizona show us how it will be implemented. There's enough historical data to show the innate oppressive nature of polygamy.
Click to expand...

So we should judge all black people by gang bangers? All gay people by those who do the parade? Sorry blanket judgments don't work.

Ikari said:
There was never a time when we demanded a potential State remove Same Sex Marriage in order to enter the Union.
Click to expand...

I never said that. Nice job trying to play it off though. ;)
 
Blackdog said:
Not that this addressed any of my points, but lets go with this.

Some of the country's do, some don't but it is irrelevant as the law in the US would be different.

The separate but equal argument does not fly under the law.

The religious argument is just as valid under the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Since we can't truly discriminate against a "number" of people involved in a marriage, then there is no "separate but equal". There is no equal for everyone that might be involved in a polygamous marriage. You show me a way to guarantee everyone actually can be equal (and that means everyone), then it will work.

Also, then you must agree that those same sex couples who are/get married in a religious ceremony in the US now are also being discriminated against based on their religion, as well as their sex. Good to know that you now agree that same sex couples deserve to be in legal marriages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom