Gay Marriage

Upchurch said:
You make it sound as if there was never such a thing as a legal polygamous marriage. (see the old testament side. Jebus was a big fuddy duddy.)
Click to expand...
Well, this is a JREF first I believe.

A gay marriage thread, and the one guy who refers to the bible is both pro-gay marriage AND arguing in favour of polygamous marriages.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
The problem with past instances of legal polygamous marriage is they were not the kind of marriage the polyamorous (by my understanding) want today. They were not equal partnerships of multiple people. They were one man and his many subordinate wives (or, much more rarely, one woman and her many subordinate husbands). In a very real sense, it was more like one man being involved in many different 1M/1F pairings than a 1M/XF group.

Of course, equal partnership in two-party marriages is also a pretty modern idea.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Polygamous marriages (as opposed to polyandry which is historically quite rare) has flourished in times and/or places where women were largely considered property and had very few rights of their own. Women were the property of their fathers until they got married and then they were their husband's property. I don't think that any of us (well maybe some of you guys ;) ) want to go back to that - personally I don't like being considered as chattel. So citing historical/cultural cases of polygamy as working out fine doesn't really add anything to the discussion of legalizing group marriages today.

OMG! This is my first post in the Politics Forum! What have I done?
 
Miss Anthrope said:
I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy...........and they never seem to get split, either?
Click to expand...
It is an improvement over the Santorumesque quick slides to "pedophilia" on this topic, isn't it? What is more, polygamy has a far deeper precedent world wide as a marital custom, while homosexual activity leading to a marriage coupling has far less.

FWIW, derail: great article in last month's Atlantic Monthly on homosexuality in Arabia. Bottom line: same sex sex is something you do, not something you are, and the gay swinging scene is apparentlyl there, but "not talked about in polite company."

DR
 
Miss Anthrope said:
I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy
Click to expand...

The thing is, once appeals to tradition and religious dogma are removed, there's just not a whole lot to talk about with gay marriage. Polygamy/polyamory is a more complicated issue, so in a way it's natural that the discussion seems to drift in that direction.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy...........and they never seem to get split, either?
Click to expand...


the op changed their mind on this one so its not as off topic as usual... theres no one on the anti gay marriage side in this thread right now.
 
I just want to add onto this thread, that I am for gay marriage, but against polygamy.

My anti-polygamy views, though, come from a relational database viewpoint.

It is simpler to create a one-to-one relationship than a many-to-many relationship. Many-to-Many requires a join table, and thus would make the census servers slower. :D
 
opqdan said:
I just want to add onto this thread, that I am for gay marriage, but against polygamy.

My anti-polygamy views, though, come from a relational database viewpoint.

It is simpler to create a one-to-one relationship than a many-to-many relationship. Many-to-Many requires a join table, and thus would make the census servers slower. :D
Click to expand...

ROFL
 
Thanz said:
Well, this is a JREF first I believe.

A gay marriage thread, and the one guy who refers to the bible is both pro-gay marriage AND arguing in favour of polygamous marriages.
Click to expand...
It was the first source that comes to mind. Granted, as source of history, the Bible has many holes. Do you believe it's depiction of marriage in ancient times is inaccurate in this regard?
 
I'm impressed - the discussion continues, and all seems quite civil!

Well, whether plural marriage is more complicated, or more expensive, or whatever, it's coming. The fact that the issue sparks as much debate as it does seems to indicate that there is a growing desire for plural marriage.

But if it ever becomes a point, I'd only enter such a marriage as a last resort. As it is, I'm poly myself, though not practicing as such at the moment, and I can foresee a time when I might want to get involved in another plural relationship... but even if plural marriages become legal, I won't pursue one unless we all agree it's absolutely necessary for some reason. I just don't like the whole 'legal marriage' thing to begin with.

But I think we're all pretty much in agreement about the original point expressed - opening the door to homosexual marriages does NOT mean we're opening the door to polyamorous marriages. It's two entirely different issues.

I tell you what I'm wondering... how long before people want to have virtual marriages recognized, as an additional contract to any actual marriage they may have?

...

I can see it now... the year is 2884, and Zon Alizandr Kwik-E-Mart is in virtual court, petitioning to be allowed to bond to his soul-mate, the household service android W.I.F.E.4000... And the opposing side, Sir Mykal Boltn New-Tes-Ta-Mint Li, is arguing that allowing marriages to A.I.s will lead to people wanting to marry their automatic food rehydrators...
 
My personal opinion is still the same.

If you want polygamy, I have no problem with that.

If you want a gay marriage, no problem.

I just think that one does not necessitate the other.

The idea of getting rid of marriage altogether isn't necessarily a bad one, but is the most unlikely. Legalizing gay marriage is more likely than legalizing polygamy. So it's out of a desire for conclusions and a more pragmatic approach that I support more of one than the other.
 
nails3jesus0 said:
the op changed their mind on this one so its not as off topic as usual... theres no one on the anti gay marriage side in this thread right now.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I did ask the question here why none of the presidential candidates have yet to support gay marriage. I think that is a valid question- unless a candidate did and I have not heard about it? Does anyone know?
 
Upchurch said:
Touche.

eta:
going way back, we have records of men with many wives and concubines (indicating that there was a difference between someone you were married to and someone you kept around for the sex). How does that figure into it?
Click to expand...

I think you would be hard pressed to find much for multiple wives in the western legal tradition, Mormons are the only case I can think of and I am not sure how much they practiced wester legal practices while polygamous.

As for concubines that is clearly not a marriage as they are not a wife. By defining the term differently there is a clear mark that they are different institutions.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy...........and they never seem to get split, either?
Click to expand...

As there is no disagreement as to gay marriage being expressed in this thread, there is not much to debate when people agree.

There was that thread with that horribly written paper claiming that gay marriage is economically distinct from hetero marriage, I do not recall that touching on polygamy at all.
 
steverino said:
Excellent point. I did ask the question here why none of the presidential candidates have yet to support gay marriage. I think that is a valid question- unless a candidate did and I have not heard about it? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

One might as well ask if any candidate is an atheist. While arguments from tradition and the bible might carry no weight here, this is not representative of the united states.
 
Lonewulf said:
My personal opinion is still the same.

If you want polygamy, I have no problem with that.

If you want a gay marriage, no problem.

I just think that one does not necessitate the other.

The idea of getting rid of marriage altogether isn't necessarily a bad one, but is the most unlikely. Legalizing gay marriage is more likely than legalizing polygamy. So it's out of a desire for conclusions and a more pragmatic approach that I support more of one than the other.
Click to expand...
Despite how much fun I've had arguing the case, when it comes to the real world, this is really where I stand. And this really has been a fun thread.

steverino said:
Excellent point. I did ask the question here why none of the presidential candidates have yet to support gay marriage. I think that is a valid question- unless a candidate did and I have not heard about it? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
Well, Kucinich is an obvious one.

It's hard to find anyone else who is explicitly saying that they are for it. Either their websites say that they are definitely against it or the issue isn't mentioned at all. There are plenty of third party sites accusing one candidate or another of being pro-gay marriage, but that doesn't count.

Once again, I have to hand it to Kucinich. He may be something of a nut job politician, but he's a nut job mostly because he actually stands by his principles in a Jefferson Smith sort of way. I wish we had a little more of that kind of crazy in Washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom