Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has never been an issue to "discriminate" based on number: Does giving equal rights to women in employment mean that therefore two people or three people have the right to go in and fill one position? Of course not - that's absurd. A case can be made by analogy that giving a "triple" equal rights to a couple is just as far removed from giving lesbians/gays the same rights as straights.
Equal treatment means gays and lesbians have the same privileges as straights. It does not mean that a group of three persons has the same rights as a group of two persons.
If you want that, you need a "LGBTS" movement: "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Supernumerary"!
based on what logic ?
How is a union of three where at least one is of different sex any less moral / natural / whatever than two men banging each other ? Looking at humanity as a whole, I'd say it's far more common.
No. Legalizing same sex marriage, therefore changing longstanding tradition, opened the door for other marriage options, as well.
Like I said.... Because Law X changed, now any other law with a vague connection to that one can change? I don't see how polygamy is connected to homosexuality. They are both marriage "options" but so is child marriage, bestiality or incest, and they have nothing in common with homosexuality.
Like I said.... Because Law X changed, now any other law with a vague connection to that one can change? I don't see how polygamy is connected to homosexuality.
I don't see how it isn't, both are historical union options that were denied right to exist due to Judeo-Christian morals.
At least the polygamy has been a perfectly legal institution in many cultures for centuries. You can't say that about gay marriage. It's far more unorthodox. Even the ancient Greeks who saw pederasty as normal thing did not allow marriages between men.
So your argument doesn't hold water. So far I haven't seen one coherent post explaining why polygamy is in any way shape or form fundamentally different and doesn't deserve the same rights as gay union.
I do not think lawsuits over polygamy will succeed (other than ones challenging the legality of laws in some states like Utah that made 'cohabitation' illegal) because there is no actual discrimination occurring. Everyone is subject to the same set of laws. It's not as if we are saying that certain groups can engage in a polygamous marriage and others can't.
Bingo. It's not inherently discriminatory: it's based the injustice of greedy men taking advantage of vulnerable women. Why would we legalize that and not let's say incest between a brother and sister who are not abusive to each other?
At least the polygamy has been a perfectly legal institution in many cultures for centuries.
So is capital punishment for adultery- and honor killings in many parts of the world. What is your point? What do other countries' misogynistic, abusive and corrupt religiously-based legal systems have to do with ours?
Bingo. It's not inherently discriminatory: it's based the injustice of greedy men taking advantage of vulnerable women. Why would we legalize that and not let's say incest between a brother and sister who are not abusive to each other?
Polygamy does not necessarily mean one man and xx women. Ever heard of family groups ?
And there are situations where one spouse is taking advantage of another in traditional families. So this doesn't fly.
Again, I am waiting for one - just one - good explanation of what makes polygamy inherently unacceptable when same sex couples can marry.
Bingo. It's not inherently discriminatory: it's based the injustice of greedy men taking advantage of vulnerable women. Why would we legalize that and not let's say incest between a brother and sister who are not abusive to each other?
Anyone in favor of polygamy, wouldn't object multiple guys marrying one girls as well. In fact, as I mentioned before, it might be very realistic configuration - Gay/Bi man + Bi + Straight Girl / or a Trans Girl + Straight Guy + Straight Girl.
So is capital punishment for adultery- and honor killings in many parts of the world. What is your point? What do other countries' misogynistic, abusive and corrupt religiously-based legal systems have to do with ours?
The rest of your post is just bunk.
Again, you fail to show one good reason what is it that makes polygamy inherently bad. You're not saying that marriage between more than one person is on the same level as sanctioned murder, are you ? Or are you implying that every polygamous relationship is abusive ? Based on what data ? Are you projecting the specifics of Middle Eastern culture and mentality onto Western society ? How do you know it would be the same in the West ?
The bottom line, a same sex marriage is more unorthodox than a marriage between more than two representatives of different sexes. So please explain what exactly makes it unacceptable if the same sex marriage is found acceptable. In concrete, logical terms.
Group A These folks were AGAINST same sex couples being able to marry AND they're AGAINST poly groups being able to marry.
Not sure why it's their business, but at least they're consistent. Sometimes they use paranoid slippery-slope arguments about increased crime because the male/female ratio gets thrown out of whack by powerful men hoarding all the women, leading to young men not being serviced and becoming lonely and aimless. Sometimes they revert to argumentum ad antiquitatem. These people were likely to have supported a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage for everyone by their strict, modern, good, Christian definition. Sometimes they're so conservative and authoritarian they squeak.
Group B These folks were AGAINST same sex couples being able to marry BUT they're OKAY with poly groups being able to marry.
Or maybe that should be *seemingly* Okay. Sometimes they're associated with religious groups (Mormons, Muslims) or appeal to those groups. Sometimes they refer to historical precedence where poly has been allowed but same sex has not. Many times they're just frustrated Group A people who want to register their disapproval of same sex marriage by showing how it has opened the door for other whacky types of marriage, such as poly (or marrying your dog or a small child or a blueberry pie). Take that.
Group C These folks were OKAY with same sex couples being able to marry BUT they're AGAINST poly groups being able to marry.
These people stick hard to the assertion that same sex marriage was ONLY about couples and never had as its aim the allowance of poly marriage. They will stick to their guns, at least for now, because the battles and the victory over same sex marriage is still fresh in their minds and they're loathe to be accused of having a background agenda all along when they insisted during the same sex fight that it was only ever going to be about couples. Sometimes they use very similar terminology to decry poly as their opponents used to decry same sex.
Group D These folks were OKAY with same sex couples being able to marry AND they're OKAY with poly groups being able to marry.
Everything goes. These people don't seem to revere the institution of marriage much at all. Sometimes they'll want to throw out the word "marriage" altogether in favor of some cold technical term like "contract." Maybe they've lost sight (or never had sight) of the rich tradition of marriage and its social purpose. Maybe they just think who marries whom among consenting adults is none of their business. Maybe they think poly allowance is consistent with same sex allowance. While Group B people push for poly in a passive aggressive way, Group D people see no contradictions. They suspect a subset of Group C people are closeted Group D people.
--------------------------------------------
Of course both the X and Y dimensions are spectrums. Toward the center-line you may just be ho-hum tolerant, a non-judgmental live-and-let-liver, or mildly disapproving, but in your own placid, quiet way. Toward the far end of the Less Tolerant portion you may be virulently opposed -- maybe you're a bile-spewing, hell-damning hater. Toward the far end of the More Tolerant portion you may be militantly in favor -- maybe you're a Sisyphean Social Justice Warrior.
Last edited by Nepenthe; 07-31-2015 at 09:32 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
