Let me explain one of the particular musings I had.
One (not the strongest argument) of the strongest argument that the Roman Catholic Church uses against gay marriage is that the term marriage means specifically a union between a man and a women.
However, legalizing gay marriage would be changing the definition of marriage to encompass the same gender.
I believe that legalizing polygamy is practically the same concept by altering the definition into, "a union between a least one man and women."
The strongest argument for gay marriage is that people should have the freedom to practice whatever they want no matter if it is right or wrong. It is their life and they can make their own choices. They should be free to enjoy the same rights as straight people.
I believe that this would also apply to polygamy. People should have the freedom to marry whoever they please and as much times as they please. It is there life and they can make their own choices and mistakes. There are always divorces if one spouse is not content that their spouse is having multiple husbands or wives.
Personally, I support gay marriage even thought I think it is wrong. I believe people should have the freedom to do whatever they please. Using the same logic, I would also support polygamy. As a result, if they legalize gay marriage, I would start the legalize polygamy movement.
Poll: What do you support the legalization of?
Both Gay Marriage and Polygamy (50)
49%
Neither should be legalized. (22)
21%
Gay Marriage Only (20)
19%
Polygamy Only (7)
7%
Undecided (4)
4%
103 total votes
Your vote: What do you support the legalization of?
(Vote): Gay Marriage Only (Vote): Polygamy Only (Vote): Both Gay Marriage and Polygamy (Vote): Neither should be legalized. (Vote): Undecided
edit: to answer your question fully though, the problem lies in the word "marriage" and the fact that there are legal and religious and familiar definitions of it. Personally, whatever an individual or religion defines it as means squat to me, let them do as they please. Just as extremist mormon families have one "legal" spouse but a couple others that they are married to religiously, can a person be married to someone else through their own accords, ignoring all legal repurcussions. What most gays are fighting really is a moral victory, since homosexuality is one of the few things against which it is somewhat accepted to be intolerant against in modern society.
Gay couples can already get a domestic partnership, which for all intents and purposes functions the same as a marriage legally(someone correct me here if i'm wrong). They cannot however be married in a church, and I am perfectly fine with that, as churches should be able to set their own standards on personal matters such as this. (well, technically they can take churches to court, but then it'd open a big can of worms and a huge debacle over "separation of church and state" which will never have a clear answer, and will take away the last bit of power churches have since they were basically reduced to nonprofit organizations in usa)
Really, why does getting the right to marriage a deal? i don't know. It's just a fight over semantics really. Homosexuals can't change other people's opinions on the matter. If we got rid of marriage (and all the legal situations etc that come along with it), what would change? People would still get married (by a priest) it would have no bearing on their legal status, and if they wanted to get divorced, theyd sort their belongings just the same. Child support etc, would work the same. The tax deductions and w/e we get for being married, is dumb. It'd be a much cleaner solution, allowing everyone having their own opinion and definitions of marriage, and the government would get away with its hands clean of this whole marriage nonsense.
tl;dr: leave marriage to churches and whoever they choose to marry. Homosexuals trying to get married in the Vatican's church is like ... samus aran asking why she can't have purple hair. Sure, it can happen, but it goes against tradition, and besides, does it really matter?
That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
On December 14 2011 15:16 Fishgle wrote: where's the option:
Marriage should be abolished
I am also of this opinion, so I voted that both should be legal since it is the closest option. I don't see why people should care, as long as people is of age there is no reason to care (a separate discussion about which age is proper could be held).
On December 14 2011 15:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
Child birth also dilutes that bond and should automatically dissolve marriage. Same reasoning.
the strongest argument isn't that people "choose" to do whatever they want. people don't choose to be homosexual, they're born like that.
imo the strongest argument is that homosexuals are born homosexuals and they are ostracised by society for being born that way, so marriage is a step towards equality. homosexuality isn't a choice...
i honestly don't care if they legalized polygamy. don't think society is even ready for it and in western societies it won't matter at all to people who don't want it.
i'm 100% pro gay marriage though. mainly because i find people who are against gay marriage for personal reasons unbearable. homosexuals don't influence how people live and people want to deny them the right to marry? lol. think about how fucked that is.
On December 14 2011 15:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
This sounds similar to the Church's justification. Gay marriage is unnatural because they can't reproduce and they put their adopted baby in awkward situation.
I could point out flaws in both gay marriage and polygamy. But the basic points that I'm arguing is that they are both challenging the idea of marriage and advocating a freedom to do what they want.
Honestly if people want to be in a polygamous relationship, it's their choice. As long as it is their own will, I see nothing wrong with it. It doesn't affect me at all.
I would not like to see a bunch of polygamous relationships starting to pop up in those isolated cult-like communities though in the mid-West and stuff . . . it would be difficult to determine who really wants to be in the relationship or not.
On December 14 2011 15:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
This sounds similar to the Church's justification. Gay marriage is unnatural because they can't reproduce and they put their adopted baby in awkward situation.
I could point out flaws in both gay marriage and polygamy. But the basic points that I'm arguing is that they are both challenging the idea of marriage and advocating a freedom to do what they want.
It's not a church's justification, it's a cultural and anthropological one. Polygamy doesn't work under any context or use of marriages.
On December 14 2011 15:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
This sounds similar to the Church's justification. Gay marriage is unnatural because they can't reproduce and they put their adopted baby in awkward situation.
I could point out flaws in both gay marriage and polygamy. But the basic points that I'm arguing is that they are both challenging the idea of marriage and advocating a freedom to do what they want.
It's not a church's justification, it's a cultural and anthropological one. Polygamy doesn't work under any context or use of marriages.
Correction, I think you mean, "It's not a JUST church's justification, it's a cultural and anthropological one."
You can't deny that the church uses this argument.
Polygamy works under the context of marriage because people are devoting their lives to a particular person even though they have to share that person with others. In addition, polygamy also spurs reproduction, one major function of marriage. A man has the possibility of having multiple children all in the same year.
On December 14 2011 15:29 Superiorwolf wrote: Honestly if people want to be in a polygamous relationship, it's their choice. As long as it is their own will, I see nothing wrong with it. It doesn't affect me at all.
I would not like to see a bunch of polygamous relationships starting to pop up in those isolated cult-like communities though in the mid-West and stuff . . . it would be difficult to determine who really wants to be in the relationship or not.
Yea I agree with this. I don't personally agree with polygamy but I believe people should be allowed to do what they want and would not object to the legalization of polygamous marriages.
Marriage isn't about what it used to be about anymore, it's all about benefits now and OMG I LUV U SO MUCH AFTER 1 MONTH <333xD So, why not? I don't see the difference.
The problem with polygamy is the cultish atmosphere that grows up around the community, where free choice is removed from the women. For reference look out Bountiful, BC. These are problems that don't exist in the realm of gay marriage.
On December 14 2011 15:29 Superiorwolf wrote: Honestly if people want to be in a polygamous relationship, it's their choice. As long as it is their own will, I see nothing wrong with it. It doesn't affect me at all.
I would not like to see a bunch of polygamous relationships starting to pop up in those isolated cult-like communities though in the mid-West and stuff . . . it would be difficult to determine who really wants to be in the relationship or not.
Yea I agree with this. I don't personally agree with polygamy but I believe people should be allowed to do what they want and would not object to the legalization of polygamous marriages.
Except that's not what homosexuals are fighting for. They're fighting for equal rights as citizens of the country, not for freedom to love who they want (they already love who they want, they just can't celebrate it publicly which is a case they're fighting for), they just want the ability to express it as a heterosexual who have all the rights and benefits.
The OP blurs out these specific details to make a pretty broad connection. As citizens, under the bigamist law, no one can have multiple partners. Homosexuals just want the same benefits as heterosexuals since they should be all equal citizens.
On December 14 2011 15:57 valaki wrote: Marriage isn't about what it used to be about anymore, it's all about benefits now and OMG I LUV U SO MUCH AFTER 1 MONTH <333xD So, why not? I don't see the difference.
As long as you aren't trying to have sex with animals/children (as they can't legally consent), I don't see why any of us should care one way or the other.
On December 14 2011 15:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
Child birth also dilutes that bond and should automatically dissolve marriage. Same reasoning.
No, it doesn't, because children are not related to the spouses by "marriage" but by different ties of familial bonding in parent-to-child. A marriage is a very particularized sexual relationship that obviously wouldn't apply between a parent and their children. A married person still has relationships with other people based on friendship, shared blood, etc., but having multiple spouses defeats the specialized status of "spouse" - otherwise, there's no unique notion of the committed "married couple" separate from people who merely date.
On December 14 2011 15:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: That argument doesn't apply to polygamy because multiple partners creates a "dilution" of that bond, defeating the point of a specialized commitment to a particular person because it is not a unique commitment.
This sounds similar to the Church's justification. Gay marriage is unnatural because they can't reproduce and they put their adopted baby in awkward situation.
I could point out flaws in both gay marriage and polygamy. But the basic points that I'm arguing is that they are both challenging the idea of marriage and advocating a freedom to do what they want.
? My point was not really similar to the Church's justification for prohibiting gay marriage. My point had nothing to do with "unnaturalness" or children.
Simply put: too many legal problems arise with polygamy. I won't bore you with the rest, some countries allow polygyny , but Last edit: 2011-12-14 15:41:43 that's really it.
so what you're saying is that people should have less rights because legal issues may occur.
The problem with polygamy is the cultish atmosphere that grows up around the community, where free choice is removed from the women. For reference look out Bountiful, BC. These are problems that don't exist in the realm of gay marriage.
That is a major problem in other countries but polygamy is already considered morally wrong by most Americans that this won't be a problem.
On December 14 2011 15:55 Najda wrote: Show nested quote +
Yea I agree with this. I don't personally agree with polygamy but I believe people should be allowed to do what they want and would not object to the legalization of polygamous marriages.
Except that's not what homosexuals are fighting for. They're fighting for equal rights as citizens of the country, not for freedom to love who they want (they already love who they want, they just can't celebrate it publicly which is a case they're fighting for), they just want the ability to express it as a heterosexual who have all the rights and benefits.
The OP blurs out these specific details to make a pretty broad connection. As citizens, under the bigamist law, no one can have multiple partners. Homosexuals just want the same benefits as heterosexuals since they should be all equal citizens.
Yes, there is a lot of detail that I left out because my goal wasn't to advocate/denounce for gay marriage but to promote more freedom and rights. This blog is not supposed to be a debate about gay marriage so such details would be superfluous.
My point was not really similar to the Church's justification for prohibiting gay marriage. My point had nothing to do with Last edit: 2011-12-14 16:12:16 "unnaturalness" or children
I would like to reiterate why I used the church example: I could point out flaws in both gay marriage and polygamy. But the basic points that I'm arguing is that they are both challenging the idea of marriage and advocating a freedom to do what they want.
My philosophy on life: do what the fuck you want if it doesn't harm other people.
There's no reason to not legalise gay marriage fully, and I've never heard anyone intelligent present an argument against it that didn't resort to either fairy tales or just straight up homophobia.
I guess the same applies to polygamy. If 2 people want to be married to the same person, more power to them, I don't give a fuck 'cause it doesn't affect me at all. Same as gay marriage. If two people love each other and want to formalise that and have it legally recognised, how dare anyone tell them they're not allowed?
If there are legal issues with polygamy (I'm assuming things like who gets what in the case of a split) it seems to be difficult to sort out... I guess you can legislate that there will be no legal intervention in the event of a breakup of a polygamous marriage... like, there's no definition of who gets what, and it has to be sorted between the couple. But that obviously has problems.
That said, the issue of legalising polygamy is different to that of gay marriage. Gay marriage is an issue of discrimination; legalising it grants the right to marriage to some couples which is a right other couples already have. Polygamy is granting a new right.
In addition, polygamy also spurs reproduction, one major function of marriage. A man has the possibility of having multiple children all in the same year.
I'm sorry, but that is completely and utterly ridiculous. Marriage has a grand total of fuck all to do with reproduction in any way. We don't stop old straight couples getting married. We don't stop infertile straight couples getting married.
The only thing that spurs reproduction is a man and a woman (who're capable of having children) having sex without a contraceptive. There's no other way to reproduce, so claiming that marriage somehow influences reproduction is at best misguided.
EDIT: Sorry, I just reread this and realised my tone comes off as pretty aggressive. I don't mean to be aggressive or to insult you; this is a topic I feel very strongly about and I often let my emotions run away with me when it comes to discussing gay marriage. It's something I should work on controlling.
Simply put: too many legal problems arise with polygamy. I won't bore you with the rest, some countries allow polygyny , but Last edit: 2011-12-14 15:41:43 that's really it.
so what you're saying is that people should have less rights because legal issues may occur.
Not really. The thing is, there are problems with Polygamy that simply aren't there when gays fight for equal rights. Polygamy always sprung from belittlement of the other gender, no matter how much their poets tried to hide it. The whole concept was for times with abundance of womens due to wars or straight up male dominance. That is why I can't support polygamy no matter how much anyone tries to convince me.
On December 14 2011 16:12 aztrorisk wrote: so what you're saying is that people should have less rights because legal issues may occur.
Do you know what those legal issues are or are you just acting skeptic because you are uninformed? laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are for starters.
Yes, believe it or not, you sacrifice individual rights to be within a society and its norms and values. This is obvious and pretty basic.
Torte pretty much nailed all the points on the head. Marriage's main incentive is that it confers a lot of economic benefits that gays aren't getting. Polygamy is even more of a legal and ethical clusterfuck on another scale to gay marriage, so it won't be touched upon soon, if at all.
The thing is for me is that marriage is meant to be you saying you want to spend the rest of your life with this person. If you want to get married to many people that imo isn't what marriage is.
OP is clearly the arbiter of the Catholic Church. His thoughtful and poignant arguments are matched only by his graceful and articulate style of writing.
Polygamy is exactly like homosexual marriages-- they both are... about ... marrying people... and uh... they're both sins against God... uh and... they're both... they're both bad.
Well, at least in the US, the primary reason that gay couples are seeking to legalize marriage is because of the legal rights marriage provides. Things like health insurance coverage, visitation rights in hospitals and adoption rights just aren't covered clearly for same sex couples which leads to discrimination (intentional or otherwise).
Making polygamy legal allows one person to grant those rights to as many people as he/she wants. Companies might have to provide spousal health insurance to 4 or 5 different spouses while most people will only have 1 spouse. I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong (even though I don't see the point), but allowing multiple spouses the same protection under the law would just create a legal nightmare. That is why I think those benefits should only be able to be bestowed upon one person at a time.
Polygamy shouldn't be bundled with homosexual marriage. One is persecution based on orientation which we as a society should advance past, the other is more or less exploitation of the other gender.
i'm on the 'end marriage having any legal standing' side of things. let religions dictate what they think marriage is, let any consenting adults enter into civil unions
The thing that bothers me the most with polygamy is that it's either "A male married with X females" or "A female marriers with X males" ( I'll skip the gays versions, you get my point right ).
This creates an obvious unbalanced relationship that's seems unhealthy to me.
I also vote for the "abolish marriage" option. Talk about an antiquated institution. My girlfriend would probably hate that though. Why do girls have such a hardon for marriage? Doesn't make any god damn sense.
Gay marriage is an obvious yes... as a straight guy, I deserve no more benefits when it comes to marriage than a gay man. It's about time we started treating homosexuals as equals.
As far as polygamy goes, if a man can manage to support and love all parties, then that's fine in my book. It's not for me, and I'm not exactly sure how it'd work, but I'd imagine that someone, somewhere, could make it work.
I'd legalize both, but it would be important to make sure that the multiple wives/ husbands/ families weren't being neglected.
Marriage and state should just be separated. I hate how married couples get tax cuts here in Germany. If there should be tax reliefs, then for children only.
Polygamy can be both Polygyny (a woman has several husbands) and Polyandry (a man has several wives), as well as a group marriage. Legalizing Polyandry only (like it is done in most countries where polygamy is legal) is misogynistic. Other than that I have no problem with it. Gay marriage is an obvious yes.
The thing about American law is that it's very specific. Astoundingly so. Changing the genders in "a union between one man and one woman" to "a union between two people of any gender" would not suddenly make polygamy look all that much better.
However, as a practicing Christian, I don't give a flying fuck who you or anyone else marries. I'm not participating in your gay marriage, so I don't care if it happens. Don't propose to me, and I won't tell you to go away.
As for polygamy, if one man wishes to be that miserable, he should be allowed to be.
As far as the state/government is concerned marriage should only be about the legal rights and issues. As such any 1:1 relationship between two taxpayers/potential taxpayers should be legal. Poly-anything is illegal because it's not a 1:1 relationship and offers tax/legal benefits that are not intended as well as creating ambiguity about some of the benefits like inheritance.
As far as I'm concerned marriage shouldn't have any relation to sex and could be between brother/sister, two straight women, man/shoe, or man/animal and it wouldn't bother me except that shoes and animals don't pay taxes. Sure I'd still be creeped out by a brother/sister 'marriage', but I can't think of any reason why it should be illegal as it doesn't necessarily imply incest.
If you want to deprecate the use of word marriage from all legal relevance that's fine, but until that happens all couples should be given the same word.
If they desire to have a different identity, why succumb to social constructs, such as marriage. Just be partners and to hell with others!
Because when your partner falls seriously ill you want a) your medical insurance to cover him and b) some rights/influence over how he's treated among other things.
Gay marriage has to do with basic rights, economic benefits, etc. Polygamy not only challenges all legal standards pertaining to marriage, it also has a cultish reputation and defeats the purpose of marriage(two people loving another and wanting to seal that bond). Polygamy is nothing like gay marriage and is in fact FAR more complicated an issue to tackle.
I normally would say something like the "marriage shouldn't mean anything legally" but I'm too ignorant of what the actual legal benefits of marriage are, and it seems like it would be pretty convenient to have marriages for legal purposes (cases of inheritance, property, etc especially if one of the people dies). And it can be straightforward given 1 person married to one other person.
So, I'd be anti-polygamy unless it can be easily worked into the legal code.
As for the act of polygamy, it already appears plenty of marriages are polygamous, just one person in the marriage doesn't know :p.
EPT
). 
