Are polygamy and Homosexuality "equal" legally/morally

[pimpdave]

So is it cool if I just go ahead and declare victory in this thread now?

May I claim, INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE?

[thegreekdog]

Addressing pimpdave's comments:

Polygamy does not necessarily lend itself to violence, rape, statutory rape, or child abuse. The latest polygamy issue that was plastered on the news involved these things, but polygamy does not necessarily lend itself to these things. That seems to be ingorant bias on your part. It's like if I said, "black people in inner cities are prone to being in gangs and using drugs."

But...they are prone to that....

Dude... a lot of groups are prone to a lot of things. Doesn't mean we need to make it illegal.

What...are you saying that gangbanging and selling drugs shouldn't be illegal? Or am I just confused?

No. Here's the corrollary:

People practicing polygamy are more prone to child abuse, statutory rape, and rape. Even though child abuse, statutory rape, and rape are illegal, we should also make polygamy illegal.

African Americans living in the inner cities who do not have a father at home are more prone to murdering and selling drugs. Even though murder and selling drugs are illegal, we should also make African American fathers be involved with raising their children.

[thegreekdog]

So is it cool if I just go ahead and declare victory in this thread now?

May I claim, INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE?

With respect to me? Yes.

[Snorri1234]

People practicing polygamy are more prone to child abuse, statutory rape, and rape. Even though child abuse, statutory rape, and rape are illegal, we should also make polygamy illegal.

African Americans living in the inner cities who do not have a father at home are more prone to murdering and selling drugs. Even though murder and selling drugs are illegal, we should also make African American fathers be involved with raising their children.

Ah yes, good point.


I'll get back to you with a reply.

[thegreekdog]

People practicing polygamy are more prone to child abuse, statutory rape, and rape. Even though child abuse, statutory rape, and rape are illegal, we should also make polygamy illegal.

African Americans living in the inner cities who do not have a father at home are more prone to murdering and selling drugs. Even though murder and selling drugs are illegal, we should also make African American fathers be involved with raising their children.

Ah yes, good point.


I'll get back to you with a reply.

FYI - I don't actually believe that there should be a law requiring fathers to be involved with raising their children... if that makes any difference.

[Snorri1234]

People practicing polygamy are more prone to child abuse, statutory rape, and rape. Even though child abuse, statutory rape, and rape are illegal, we should also make polygamy illegal.

African Americans living in the inner cities who do not have a father at home are more prone to murdering and selling drugs. Even though murder and selling drugs are illegal, we should also make African American fathers be involved with raising their children.

Ah yes, good point.


I'll get back to you with a reply.

FYI - I don't actually believe that there should be a law requiring fathers to be involved with raising their children... if that makes any difference.

Oh no I realised that.

[PLAYER57832]

So is it cool if I just go ahead and declare victory in this thread now?

May I claim, INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE?

I think all sides can declare victory, becuase we are discussing and responding to each other.

[pimpdave]

"Intellectual checkmate" is an internet joke. I would link to exactly what the 'term' refers to, but the content might not be SFW, so just look it up on your own (this incredibly arrogant guy has made a bunch of a YouTube videos in which he details how cool he is. In one, he declares "intellectual checkmate" over the people that tell him he has farty pants in his comments).

[PLAYER57832]

No. Here's the corrollary:

People practicing polygamy are more prone to child abuse, statutory rape, and rape. Even though child abuse, statutory rape, and rape are illegal, we should also make polygamy illegal.

African Americans living in the inner cities who do not have a father at home are more prone to murdering and selling drugs. Even though murder and selling drugs are illegal, we should also make African American fathers be involved with raising their children.

You are being obtuse.

The connection is not between being African American and selling drugs/murder. The connection is between living in the "inner city", in gang-prone conditions and the crime.

So, the real corollary is "outlawing polygamy is like outlawing living in the 'inner city' ". I think more than a few people would like such a law -- it just is not practical. Outlawing polygamy entirely is also pretty shakey. (what is the difference between people living in the same household, living apart, etc.)

Outlawing legal recognition of polygamy, placing it as "equal" to other types of marriage -- that is quite possible to mandate and, as I said above, there are valid reasons to do so.

[jonesthecurl]

Addressing pimpdave's comments:

Polygamy does not necessarily lend itself to violence, rape, statutory rape, or child abuse. The latest polygamy issue that was plastered on the news involved these things, but polygamy does not necessarily lend itself to these things. That seems to be ingorant bias on your part. It's like if I said, "black people in inner cities are prone to being in gangs and using drugs."

But...they are prone to that....

Dude... a lot of groups are prone to a lot of things. Doesn't mean we need to make it illegal.

What...are you saying that gangbanging and selling drugs shouldn't be illegal? Or am I just confused?

Well, you definately shouldn't do them at the same time: you might lose count when giving change.

[thegreekdog]

No. Here's the corrollary:

People practicing polygamy are more prone to child abuse, statutory rape, and rape. Even though child abuse, statutory rape, and rape are illegal, we should also make polygamy illegal.

African Americans living in the inner cities who do not have a father at home are more prone to murdering and selling drugs. Even though murder and selling drugs are illegal, we should also make African American fathers be involved with raising their children.

You are being obtuse.

The connection is not between being African American and selling drugs/murder. The connection is between living in the "inner city", in gang-prone conditions and the crime.

So, the real corollary is "outlawing polygamy is like outlawing living in the 'inner city' ". I think more than a few people would like such a law -- it just is not practical. Outlawing polygamy entirely is also pretty shakey. (what is the difference between people living in the same household, living apart, etc.)

Outlawing legal recognition of polygamy, placing it as "equal" to other types of marriage -- that is quite possible to mandate and, as I said above, there are valid reasons to do so.

Alrighty, let's take this shall we - "The connection is between living in the inner city, in gang-prone conditions[.]"

So, we should outlaw living in inner cities then? Because for child abuse and statutory rape, the condition is living in a polygamist family; therefore, we should outlaw polygam.

[Snorri1234]

I don't think you've overlooked the practicality and rightfullness of your argument. We can't outlaw people from living where they live since they have the fundamental right to life whereever they want.

Also, how would you suggest we go about banning people from inner cities and why would it make a difference?

[PLAYER57832]

Alrighty, let's take this shall we - "The connection is between living in the inner city, in gang-prone conditions[.]"

So, we should outlaw living in inner cities then? Because for child abuse and statutory rape, the condition is living in a polygamist family; therefore, we should outlaw polygam.

Actually, I already said I did. (though a bit tongue in cheek, of course).

I don't think you've overlooked the practicality and rightfullness of your argument. We can't outlaw people from living where they live since they have the fundamental right to life whereever they want.

Also, how would you suggest we go about banning people from inner cities and why would it make a difference?

Set aside the practicality (already know it would never work), but I sincerely doubt you will get many people rising up and saying "I demand the right to live in a crime-ridden, drug-infested, gang-ridden neighborhood".

What people say is that they want OUT of those places...

And therein lies the irony. We really ought to do away with inner cities. Not cities, but the inner city as described above. (crime, gangs, etc.) No one really knows how to do that, though. (apparently).

[pimpdave]

You know, in the "inner city" about 90% of the population is "good" and 10% are bad apples.

The problem is, it only takes 10% to keep the cycle of crime and substance abuse going. And most of the residents don't say they want out (where are you getting your information, Player?) they want CHANGE.

[pimpdave]

Alrighty, let's take this shall we - "The connection is between living in the inner city, in gang-prone conditions[.]"

So, we should outlaw living in inner cities then? Because for child abuse and statutory rape, the condition is living in a polygamist family; therefore, we should outlaw polygam.

Also, this is ridiculous, but again, I think greekdog knows that. First of all, I for one never made the argument that polygamy is bad because of child abuse and statutory rape. Polygamy is not a necessary condition for those crimes to occur (they happen everywhere, including polygamist societies).

Again, go back to my argument about the stability of society-at-large. Polygamy necessarily disrupts it because it excludes much of the population and subjugates much of the rest. It can only exist in a culture that either preys upon others nearby (i.e. kidnapping wives to keep the "rolls" full) or in a sequestered "community" in which control is maintained by a ruling class that eliminates the competition to keep the "rolls" full. Both of which are completely at odds with the democratic system and thus unacceptable.

[jonesthecurl]

If I marry two women it's Bigamy.
If I marry three it's very bigamy.

[PLAYER57832]

You know, in the "inner city" about 90% of the population is "good" and 10% are bad apples.

The problem is, it only takes 10% to keep the cycle of crime and substance abuse going. And most of the residents don't say they want out (where are you getting your information, Player?) they want CHANGE.

When you say "inner city" in this context, it is not about a location, it is about the crime, etc.

Anyway... the overall point was that there is no real comparison between polygamy and being black OR living in the inner city once you get beyond the oure surface observations.

Actually, I take that back (sort of).

I suppose the real connection is fathers. It is much harder for someone with 50 kids to devote proper attention to them. It is much more difficult for a father who does not live with his kids to devote attention to them. However, that connection is pretty loose. Set aside the extremes, whom we already said are not the group we are discussing, and polygamist fathers often do spend at least as much attention to their kids as many mongamous fathers. In addition, they tend to live in communities that offer other types of support for kids.

If it comes to a choice between someone having a bunch of girlfriends with no connection and polygamy... I would say polygamy is superior. I am just not sure either is really the way we should go. However, as has been pointed out, this is not about what you or I want, its about what should be OK in our society.

In that, I don't really have strong feelings, except that I do think its time to recognize homosexual unions legally and I don't think society is quite ready for polygamy. That may well be hypocritical in some senses. If the objections I mentioned are dealt with in some way, then perhaps that could change. For example, I don't think multiple spouses should all have equal access to social security, because that basically means all of us are supporting those extra spouses in a way we don't support single spouses. (the truth is, I would do away with all spousal support except where someone actually pays double, but that is an entirely different kettle of worms). Inheritance would not be that big of a deal -- either there is a set formula for co-ownership or things are split per some formula, but that's about like dividing stuff among kids and so forth now. Child custody, too, would require changes.

I DO think, for many reasons, that society might require those engaging in either homosexual or polygamist unions to undergo a bit more "counseling" type stuff (not lecturing, but a variety of options people can choose from). However, that would probably be beneficial for marriages, in general.

[Snorri1234]

I don't believe that the legal recognition of marriage is a fundamental right.

The reason why gay marriage is an issue is because society at large has decided that discrimination on certain grounds is unacceptable. The big ones are Race, Gender, Religion and Sexuality.

So, it follows that you can draw whatever arbitrary restrictions you like around marriage, but not any that are based on those criteria.

In other words, it is unacceptably discriminatory to say that the government will recognise marriage of heterosexual couples, but will not recognise otherwise identical marriages of homosexual couples.

It doesn't follow that it's necessary to extend this to polygamous or incestuous relationships because, amazingly enough, they aren't the same thing.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't believe that the legal recognition of marriage is a fundamental right.

The reason why gay marriage is an issue is because society at large has decided that discrimination on certain grounds is unacceptable. The big ones are Race, Gender, Religion and Sexuality.

So, it follows that you can draw whatever arbitrary restrictions you like around marriage, but not any that are based on those criteria.

In other words, it is unacceptably discriminatory to say that the government will recognise marriage of heterosexual couples, but will not recognise otherwise identical marriages of homosexual couples.

It doesn't follow that it's necessary to extend this to polygamous or incestuous relationships because, amazingly enough, they aren't the same thing.

better said

[Snorri1234]

I don't believe that the legal recognition of marriage is a fundamental right.

The reason why gay marriage is an issue is because society at large has decided that discrimination on certain grounds is unacceptable. The big ones are Race, Gender, Religion and Sexuality.

So, it follows that you can draw whatever arbitrary restrictions you like around marriage, but not any that are based on those criteria.

In other words, it is unacceptably discriminatory to say that the government will recognise marriage of heterosexual couples, but will not recognise otherwise identical marriages of homosexual couples.

It doesn't follow that it's necessary to extend this to polygamous or incestuous relationships because, amazingly enough, they aren't the same thing.

better said

Yeah I figured it summed up perfectly how you can allow gaymarriage but not polygamy.

I mean, you can still argue for or against polygamy but homosexual marriage has no real effect on it either way.