The assertion is that if homosexuality is allowed -- either morally OR legally OR both, then it follows that polygamy must also be allowed.
For clarity, the issue of underagemarriages, bestiality, etc are NOT part of this discussion. Neither is any other kind of force. This concerns consenting adults who willingly enter into a relationship they view as marriage and whether A. it should be allowed at all and B. should be recognized by the state.
If you wish to argue that childre/teens should have the right to consent to marriage, that belongs in another thread. (there actually might be argument here... not for the 12 year old, but it was common not so long ago for women to marry at age 15, certainly by 16-17)
This may have already spun its life out in the other thread, but it is a distinct topic.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
I have no moral issues with polygamy (assume, for the sake of argument, that the term is gender neutral), but it does raise some interesting legal concerns. For one, I'd have to say ALL parties would have to consent to it (so a woman can't take another husband without her current husband(s) agreeing), not to mention the issues with children that I don't even really want to get into.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
In a secular moral sense, I actually do not see a big difference. That is, some religions accept polygamy (usually only men who have multiple wives, almost no society does the reverse), but not homosexuality and vice-versa, but it all comes down to the laws/beliefs you accept or do not. However, that is like saying Christians are not the same as Buddhists. Most Christians will say that Buddhist are not going to heaven, but each religion has the same basic (theoretical) right to exist, to worship as anyone else in society. The state's interest, right to make assertions on morality is limited to issues of harm. (this is independent of the individual's right and a religion's right to make those assertions).
Legally, the difference comes down to children and property complications, plus biology, Polygamy instantly allows one man to father many, many more children than others. If we look at societies with polygamy, we tend to see problems. The first problem is what to do with the boys/men who are "left out". It winds up that a few men tend to have many, many wives, while others have none (or fewer). This borders too much on morality, so I won't go into all the implications of these unattached men, but they are many and profound.
The second problem is children. One man with many wives can have many, many more children than one man with one wife. This creates a power imbalance in society. Our influence over our children is one of the most sacrosact rights in society. This one man, then, would have influence over huge numbers of children in ways other men would not. It inherently creates an "unequal" situation. Granted, men are not all equal now in this regard. However, while other men can have varying numbers of children, often for reasons not fully in their control, polygamy subverts almost all natural limits. Even the guy who "sleeps around" is not quite equivalent, if for no other reason than that while his genes may be spread around, it is unlikely that his teachings will be. Adoption can change this, but taking kids who would not otherwise be provided for is almost always considered a positive. Also, essentially, all people have the "right" to adopt "equally", given they have "equal" circumstances. (or maybe it would be better to say "equally unequal" ). In fact, this inherent inbalance is one reason why polygamy is often held still, at least by ruling classes of people... because it is a way to ensure spreading/continuation of power. In our society, though, based much more upon meritocracy and equality, this is an inherent disadvantage. It was, in fact, largely this fear of many kids overruning our country that led to the widespread anger over Mormon polygamy. (note-- not arguing wrong or right, just practical issues).
Homosexuals, of course, are at a disadvantage here. Modern medicine, changes in morality, all mean they can have children even outside of adoption, but it is still more difficult for homosexuals to have children than heterosexuals. From a societal perspective, this was formerly a big negative, but now is either nuetral (not a factor) or a positive factor.
Next is the legal practicality of children's "position". Marriage is a lot about children. Historically, it was often THE primary reason for marriage. Children in marriage were "legitimate" and afforded basic protections and rights (of inheritance, etc.) that "illegitimate" children were not. In polygamy, this gets complicated. In some polygamist societies, they talk of "sister-wives" who "share" care of children more or less equally. Children might refer to all the adult women of the household as "mother" or by some variation of that term. (sometimes "aunt", but with more implication that in outside society -- that is, the name is not mother, but the feeling is the "same"). In others, care of children is not truly shared or is only shared in some practical ways (they may take turns "babysitting", but no one pretends the kids are "equal"). In some, women live together well and more or less peacefully. In others, there is bitter rivalry and hierarchy. In some, women might have slight hierarchies, but children are essentially "equal". In many polygamiest societies, children are afforded different rights depending upon their mother's "status" (first wife, second wife, etc.). So, custody of children within the marriage differs significantly between various polygamist societies. This would get even more complicated in custody issues -- be it through divorce or death or other reason. These issues can be clarified and resolved, but as was noted in the other thread, they would require a whole new body of law and legal debate.
Homosexuality, by contrast requires simply ignoring the gender of those people involved.
As an almost side note, this would make some people's lives --those born hermaphrodites, immensely easier. Basically, when you start looking at those issues, the question comes in just what right does the state, the government have to decide someone's gender. Further, what right does the state have to decide what that gender means? In this regard, I agree with greekdog that it can be considered a privacy issue. If you take into account that most scientific evidence suggests at least a partial biologic "cause" to homsexuality (NOT just genes -- there is no single "gay gene", no but there do seem to be biologically determined roots), then this really becomes just another form of hermaphrodism. That is, if the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals are inherently different (not arguing either way, just saying "if"), then essentially homosexuals are "another gender". As such, they should not be discriminated against legally any more than people of various colors, etc are.
Polygamy, by contrast is not considered in any way biological (at least as far as I know). That is, all "red blooded" men are attracted to multiple females (women likely, too -- the main difference is that for women having multiple men means a lot more than simply bed partners, but that is another issue). Its just that society, and women have a lot to do with this, limits the way mens pursue these tendencies. This gets pretty complicated, not trying to spin this off into yet another topic, but the biggest limitation to polygamy is women. HIstorically, a woman's security and power have to do with whom they married. They had little or no power on their own, even down to control of children. A woman in a polygamist society has, traditionally, a lot less power than a woman in monogamy. In our society, now, women have much more power.. perhaps not quite equal power, but pretty close. This means that the one big "barrier" against polygamy is somewhat gone. At the same time, women having more power means they are, perhaps, less likely to cede any power and perhaps less likely to agree with polygamy. Or, it might just mean that modern polygamy and old-style polygamy will differ.
At any rate, the point is that homosexuality is perhaps a distinct biological group, but polygamy is not.
There are probably other issues, but these are the main reasons why I would say polygamy is and should be considered independent of homosexuality.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
KoolBak wrote:That is an absolute classic example of indirect logic.
Any old school mormons here?
You posted this before I posted my longer arguments. But, from an objective religious/moral standpoint, you are correct. That is, within each religion, these issues are treated differently. However, for those outside, that is irrelevant.
I am not Hindu and therefore consider anathema certain Hindu practices. However, I don't argue that I have more right to practice my beliefs than they do in society. As long as it does not cause harm, there is no reason for the state to limit practices on moral grounds. I believe the state's assessment of morality is limited to "does it cause harm" or not.
hecter wrote:I have no moral issues with polygamy (assume, for the sake of argument, that the term is gender neutral), but it does raise some interesting legal concerns. For one, I'd have to say ALL parties would have to consent to it (so a woman can't take another husband without her current husband(s) agreeing), not to mention the issues with children that I don't even really want to get into.
I know we're supposed to pretend there's no difference between the genders but...
Good luck running the hen house with two roosters son.
hecter wrote:I have no moral issues with polygamy (assume, for the sake of argument, that the term is gender neutral), but it does raise some interesting legal concerns. For one, I'd have to say ALL parties would have to consent to it (so a woman can't take another husband without her current husband(s) agreeing), not to mention the issues with children that I don't even really want to get into.
I know we're supposed to pretend there's no difference between the genders but...
Good luck running the hen house with two roosters son.
The debate would be irrelevant if there weren't people happy to do just that. There actually are some polygamist families and groups where folks claim to be quite happy. Most of these groups have little or no sympathy for the likes of Warrne Jeps, etc. who they see as distorting the issue. I certainly would not agree, but I also would never enter a homosexual relationship.
I'm not farmiliar with "Warren Jeps" I would be kind of interested in reading up on a family with more than one male in a marriage. I have never heard of one.
I know this makes me a bigot or something but it's not going to count if there is no female or if it's a mix of lots of both genders. If there's enough women to go around or no women to make problems that's totally different. If there is only one female and the males are not bi-sexual I would wager on that not being able to last a year.
2dimes wrote:I'm not farmiliar with "Warren Jeps" I would be kind of interested in reading up on a family with more than one male in a marriage. I have never heard of one.
I know this makes me a bigot or something but it's not going to count if there is no female or if it's a mix of lots of both genders. If there's enough women to go around or no women to make problems that's totally different. If there is only one female and the males are not bi-sexual I would wager on that not being able to last a year.
When I was stationed in Oklahoma, I had a friend who was part of a two-of-each "marriage" (it wasn't legalized, obviously...but they treated it that way). Both couples had children of their own (there were three in total). They all seemed very happy and I believe they're still together, though I don't talk to the friend much these days (that was almost 20 years ago).
I think the KEY component to whether it can work is that everyone (and particularly the males, as this seems to be much more of a male problem in my view) must have absolutely no jealousy about the other relationships. It just can't work if jealousy is around, for obvious reasons.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I really don't think this is a serious issue. If the polygamists make enough of a fuss, then this law may get reversed after 100 years.
If it does become legalized, then there'll be situations where legal decisions have to made, and they will. Maybe for better or worse, who really knows?
Polygyny and polyandry actually destabilize societies. We've seen this in the Mormon communities in Utah in the last century and a half (as well as the vicious crimes against societies outside their own - like kidnap, murder and rape - they perpetrated in the name of their religion to maintain the vile practice), but also in the Muslim world where it is practiced.
Monogamous marriage makes for a more stable society because birth rates tend to go about 51% male and the rest female. So if one man - one wife plays out, pretty much everyone gets to have sexy time on the regular. With polygyny, many of the men aren't going to get wives, because, well, there just aren't enough to go around.
Of course, a good solution to that problem is to encourage those who can't dip their wicks to become suicide bombers, because the only way they're ever going to get any play is if they collect their 77 virgin reward. In the case of the Mormons, they just held kangaroo courts and regular executions for imagined offenses to thin the herd of males.
At this very utilitarian level, there is absolutely no argument one can make (if the priority is a stable, more just and peaceful society) in favor of polygyny as a benefit to society-at-large. If you want to foster a warrior society of dudes begging to die (well, actually, get laid, but they have to die to get laid...), polygyny shows us how.
So, and this has nothing to do with morality, I have no idea if gays being allowed to get married would destabilize society the same way. People can't even seem to agree on just how many of them there are in the first place. Is it 10% or 2% of the population? Are all homosexuals automatically "off the market" in the same ratio (meaning, are as many men as women gay, and openly so?) and if not, how does that effect the one-to-one ratio most likely to be achieved by a society that puts the most value on monogamous relationships?
Would allowing homosexuals to get married destroy society? I don't think anyone really knows, because there aren't good enough examples anywhere, but I do think it's very safe to say that the effect, if any, won't be nearly so detrimental as polygyny has been DEMONSTRATED to be.
So, legally, there is a very good reason to keep polygamous marriage illegal, but there is no good reason to keep gay marriage illegal.
And if I'm wrong, and it destroys society and does something horrible, like turning a bunch of otherwise potentially productive and peaceful people into idiots with dynamite strapped to their chests, I'll be all about banning it, but until then, live and let live...
Last edited by pimpdave on Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:08 pm, edited 8 times in total.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
The two things are comparable. If you want to live in a polygamist or homosexual relationship, you're free to do so.
That said, you shouldn't expect everyone to view your lifestyle choice favorably and you're not automatically entitled to government accommodations..
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
GabonX wrote:The two things are comparable. If you want to live in a polygamist or homosexual relationship, you're free to do so.
That said, you shouldn't expect everyone to view your lifestyle choice favorably and you're not automatically entitled to government accommodations..
But WHY no entitlement to government accomodations? Why are homosexuals not granted the same rights as heterosexuals?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I just googled Warren Jeps. It directed to Warren Jeffs. That guy's most definatly talking about multiple wives.
That's part of what I was getting at Woodruff. The guys are going to start competing it's just what they do. Even the most submissive male will on some level start trying to move up the ladder even if it's only for brief time periods. If there's enough women to go around it might not work ideally but it will work. I don't believe more than one male and only one female will work for more than a few months.
About the only reverse polygamus society I know of, would be of Tibet. That though, was mainly to maintain the farms and stuff due to being such a rural country (if I remember correctly). Have no idea if it is still like that since becoming a part of China, but all other polygamus relationships throughout the world have been 1 man and 2 or more wives.
Ok reading about this Warren Jeffs dude, I suspect he's not a good example of poligamy. He was accused of setting up a bunch of marriages to underaged girls. Who cares if there's more than one that's wrong on it's own. The fact that there were multiple underage women just makes it a worse thing based on volume. I don't consider the guy to really have any relivance to the poligamy discussion.
The guys is painted as a preditor not someone envolved in a poligamous relationship. If anyone is being coerced into marriage, there's a problem regardless of how many people are involved.
Ok and going back to the Warrne jeps post, I see I'm saying kind of the same thing as you playa.
Never having had more than one wife. It seems like there might be a bonus having more opportunities for sex. I'd be in a better mood and that would be better for everyone I'm thinking. Add another dude and we're going backwards as for what ever reason women can cruise for months of no sex and think that's great. Couple of weeks sometimes days without and my wife's wondering why I'm grouchy.
GabonX wrote:The two things are comparable. If you want to live in a polygamist or homosexual relationship, you're free to do so.
That said, you shouldn't expect everyone to view your lifestyle choice favorably and you're not automatically entitled to government accommodations..
But WHY no entitlement to government accomodations? Why are homosexuals not granted the same rights as heterosexuals?
Homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else in our society, and they do.
I see a trend in this thread which seems to indicate that people are opposed to polygamy because they feel threatened by it. There's a valid point which has been made about there not being enough women to go around if polygamy were to occur on a large scale, but on the other hand I don't really see it as the role of government to go about rationing women..
As for men becoming too powerful because they have too many children... If a man works hard and has enough money to support one or more families, this shows that he is an unusually capable individual. This is exactly the kind of thing which we should be promoting in our society, and it would arguably be a good thing for such men to spread their ideas and general work ethic on a larger scale.
On the other hand, if there's a man who has many wives and children but cannot support them, that's another story.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
GabonX wrote:The two things are comparable. If you want to live in a polygamist or homosexual relationship, you're free to do so.
That said, you shouldn't expect everyone to view your lifestyle choice favorably and you're not automatically entitled to government accommodations..
But WHY no entitlement to government accomodations? Why are homosexuals not granted the same rights as heterosexuals?
Homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else in our society, and they do.
Actually, they don't. They do not have the same rights to visit their loved one, life companion in the hospital and make medical decisions. They can sometimes get this through drawing up complicated legal documents. Not only does this require a lot of expense, not required of heterosexual couples, but there are many cases where it just does not suffice. Among other reasons, you often have to show the documents (and sometimes not just copies) in order for the request to be honored. These things are automatic in emergencies with heterosexuals, but not homosexuals.
Furthermore, they cannot freely adopt children in all states. If they do adopt and then travel to or through a state that does not recognize homosexual adoptions or rights, they risk not only being denied access and the right to make decisions about their children, they can lose custody.
The custody part is shared with polygamist families, but even in the tightest polygamist society, children still usually have a closer attachment to their biological mother than to the "other" mothers (or however they are termed). Even in that case, while it cannot be said they are treated equal to monogomous heterosexual unions, the threat is less.
I don't think polygamy and homosexual marriage are equal on a legal basis. I think there's a better Constitutional argument that polygamy should be a right (if engaged in for religious reasons).
My point in bringing polygamy up in other threads is to show that legal arguments don't really work with respect to things like homosexuality. Unfortunately in the United States, the moral compass generally decides what is a "right" and a "privilege." Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue, it's a moral issue and, maybe, maybe, an equal protection issue (maybe).
I don't think the issue with hospital visitation of loved ones can be addressed for certain player.
The time frame in that one case where the lesbian was rejected from seeing her partner could have happened with a legitimate legal marriage. By the time she had sent for the documents etc. I think it could and most likely would have went pretty much the same way. Laws don't fix ignorance and cruelty.
Also the way I understand things, your state laws have a fair amount of pull in some cases. It could take 50 years to get something like that through and it's still not going to be a solution. Look at the racial things that still go on and outside of those very small circles racial equality is pretty close to existing. You do have a president of African decent.
GabonX wrote:As for men becoming too powerful because they have too many children... If a man works hard and has enough money to support one or more families, this shows that he is an unusually capable individual. This is exactly the kind of thing which we should be promoting in our society, and it would arguably be a good thing for such men to spread their ideas and general work ethic on a larger scale.
On the other hand, if there's a man who has many wives and children but cannot support them, that's another story.
I don't know if that's true. Who's that dude from the "Vagina, it's not a clown car." poster with 18 kids. I don't think he's very powerfull.
thegreekdog wrote:I don't think polygamy and homosexual marriage are equal on a legal basis. I think there's a better Constitutional argument that polygamy should be a right (if engaged in for religious reasons).
But it does more harm to society (as has been demonstrated in numerous studies) than say, animal sacrifice. I disagree that there's any Constitutional argument to support polygamy as a right if engaged in for religious reasons, given the extremely well documented pattern of violent crime it necessarily spawns to sustain itself, and not just within the society that engages in the practice, but upon those neighboring it as well.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
thegreekdog wrote:I don't think polygamy and homosexual marriage are equal on a legal basis. I think there's a better Constitutional argument that polygamy should be a right (if engaged in for religious reasons).
I still don't understand this part of your argument.
I am not sure that the Constitution really has any say regarding marriage. That is, heterosexual marriages are given legal status for "convenience" more than anything else. It is based on tradition, but the legal recognition is just a handy way of codifying all sorts of other things like legality of children, inheritances, etc. That is national law, but I am not sure it really falls under the constitution.
HOWEVER, to the extent that heterosexual unions are acknowledged and given status, there seems to be no legal reason to withhold those protections from homosexual unions. The only difference, as you have pointed out, is the genitillia and well... what business is it of the state what sits in anyone's pants? In the first, it is "equal protection". The second is partially equal protection and partially "privacy". I believe equal protection, has somewhat firmer ground constitutionally than privacy, but that's just my opinion and I am not a constitutional expert.
Polygamy, though is strictly behavior. I can see the religious argument. This really has 2 phases. The first is should polygamy be prosecuted. Right now, it is. I can definitely see legitimate argument that this is religious discrimination. Still, people can get around that by careful language and generally are not prosecuted, though they do face discrimination and such. Communities where the polygamists are all consenting adults and no one is out proclaiming that they have to be husband and wives...etc are more or less left alone. From the state's perspective a group of people who decide to live together with some kind of religious recognition we might think of as "marriage" are really no different from the folks who just "sleep around" or even who "swing".
To the extent they are not left alone, its because polygamy is too often associated with other things like abuse, underage marriages, etc. Again, for this thread we leave those last out of the picture.
The other part of this is actual recognition. That is where homosexuals face the stumbling block. Ironically, I don't think the need is quite as great for polygamists as for homosexuals. Heterosexual polygamists can much more easily just "pretend" to be heterosexual, with a few "friends" in most cases. Note, I am not saying things are equal or easy. I suspect that as much as anything, the fight is not so strong for legalizing polygamy simply because there is less overall support. Also, those groups seem to orient more toward "let's go live by ourselves in the desert" for other reasons, as opposed to just wanting to meld into society. (again, I am not arguing this very strongly ... )
However, here is the thing. Whereas legal recognition of homosexuals requires simply ignoring the genitillia, recognizing polygamy requires actually reformulating things like custody, social security payments, etc. Among other issues, if all spouses were allowed to share social security, you might suddenly find all sorts of people "marrying" just to get the money. Custody could be said to be no more complicated in polygamy than now in many divorce and unmarried situations, but it would require a new body of law.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2dimes wrote:I don't think the issue with hospital visitation of loved ones can be addressed for certain player.
The time frame in that one case where the lesbian was rejected from seeing her partner could have happened with a legitimate legal marriage. By the time she had sent for the documents etc. I think it could and most likely would have went pretty much the same way. Laws don't fix ignorance and cruelty.
Hospitals don't routinely demand documents from legal spouses. You say you are married ... you are married.
Its ONLY when the couple is homosexual that such documents become necessary.
2dimes wrote:Also the way I understand things, your state laws have a fair amount of pull in some cases. It could take 50 years to get something like that through and it's still not going to be a solution. Look at the racial things that still go on and outside of those very small circles racial equality is pretty close to existing. You do have a president of African decent.
Federal law supercedes state law. That's why blacks and whites began to marry in Mississippi. I think the state finally did change the law to allow multiracial marriages, but the federal ruling came first.
GabonX wrote:As for men becoming too powerful because they have too many children... If a man works hard and has enough money to support one or more families, this shows that he is an unusually capable individual.
Not really, it shows he is a lucky individual. We are not and never have been a true meritocracy.
And I don't really think a guy who thinks he needs 20 women to make himself happy is a model I want perpetuated in our society myself. (oh, and I do happen to know at least a couple of people in that situation.. met them through some business dealings).
