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.
[quote=nimchimpsky;25646680]The "slippery slope" already started when people were allowed to marry interracially.[/]
Allowing interracial marriage means that all men, have the right to be married to 1 woman, who is also unmarried, at a time, regardless of his or her racial categorization (and the same for women).
Sure it is. To be clear, I'm not arguing against it. But the definition of marriage changed from "one man and woman woman of the same race" to "one man and one woman" when anti-miscegenation laws were lifted. Allowing same-sex marriage (federally) would change it to "two people". Allowing plural marriage (assuming all the age/consent laws are still in place) would change it to "any group of adults." Honestly, it would be kind of hard to allow plural marriage without allowing same-sex marriage, because any group of three or more people being married would involve at least two people of the same sex.
The "slippery slope" argument makes little sense because we've already been changing the definition of marriage. "Slippery slope" implies that change is threatening in some way, but I honestly don't see how allowing marriage to become inclusive of interracial couples was threatening, and don't see why expanding it to allowing two people of the same sex, or more than two people (whether polygynous, polyandrous, or mixed in nature) would be any sort of threat to society. Some economic wrinkles would have to be smoothed out, but other than that I fail to see any problem with it.
I am neutral on polygamy or polyandry, but there are very valid sociological reasons why both exist.
While the FLDS turned polygamy into a culture of abuse, the practice does not need to be abusive. Many early Mormons left the church when Joseph Smith announced the practice, but once the Mormons started on the treks westward, practical considerations kept the practice going. Many men died, leaving their wife and small children widowed and helpless. For survival's sake, another man who married the widow officially took on her and her children's protection and survival, even if no sex was involved. Those women lived on, and could bear more children when their society needed children a lot. Widows were not forced to marry, and many did not.
In these times, polygamy offers advantages to modern women; women who want it all- babies, a rising career, and all the better things in life, have found it hard to have it all. While many female executives and company leaders do manage those conflicting desires very well, many come to a crisis right at the point where their career is at it's best, but their biology begins to turn against them.
A 38 year old woman who has a happy and productive career, but desperately wants to be a mother, could do both more easily in a plural marriage, where another wife's greatest happiness is in the home, taking care of the kids and tending family affairs. A wife has more invested in the family's children than a nanny.
There are more women in America now than men. Polygamy is one way a lot of single women could find married happiness.
There are also a lot of single mothers who struggle to just get by. Polygamy could lift much burden off their shoulders. Marriage is more emotionally secure than no marriage. It is an equal emotional and legal commitment.
Men are in the same boat. With our divorce rate at 50%, there are a lot of divorced men living busy lives but go to emily homes at day's end and spend many lonely hours. Several men marrying one loving and good hearted woman could work out for men just as good as other solutions.
Marriage is not just about sex. Companionship counts. So does mutual respect, concern, and common interests. The key to successful multiple marriages, I think, would have to be strong friendship among all concerned. Feelings like jealousy or envy don't have to be a big conflict in a multiple marriage; if one of the partners becomes unhappy, they could be allowed to leave in a fair divorce. Breakups could be complicated legally, but not by necessity.
We never hear anything about the old hippie communes that were started 50 years ago, when groups of kids bought a piece of land and romantically set about trying to create a utopia for themselves. We know that almost all of the failed right away, but a few did not, and some are still intact, 3 or four generations later. I once read, years ago, about one that has become a very successful organic farm complex that is a thriving family corporation.
While one man, one woman, marrying for love remains powerful, it, by itself, does not promote good behavior. We all know couples who constantly battle between themselves and among their children. I think it is possible that polygamy could change a lot of this stuff, and I don't believe the practice encourages bad behavior or perverted desires. To the contrary, it could be an effective damper, because there are more than 2 people who have a heavy commitment to make it work. When 3 or 4 people all share the same commitment, there is always going to be one who has less invested than another, one who is a natural moderator, one who is a natural leader, one who is a natural organizer, etc.
Me? I was married for a long time, I divorced long ago, and I'm happy as a clam living as a single man. I have been serially monogamous with a few fine ladies who I still respect deeply and care about. My women and I all have led lives that made it hard to marry, all of us have been divorced, and I'm sure that if any of them, and I, was willing to make drastic life and career changes so we could marry, I would have been quite happy with any of them.
We were all unwilling to make those changes, so none of us has married. That does not mean that marriage is an impossibility in the future- folks get married at my age for lots of reasons. I think it's a fine institution, too.
Sure it is. To be clear, I'm not arguing against it. But the definition of marriage changed from "one man and woman woman of the same race" to "one man and one woman" when anti-miscegenation laws were lifted. Allowing same-sex marriage (federally) would change it to "two people". Allowing plural marriage (assuming all the age/consent laws are still in place) would change it to "any group of adults." Honestly, it would be kind of hard to allow plural marriage without allowing same-sex marriage, because any group of three or more people being married would involve at least two people of the same sex.
The "slippery slope" argument makes little sense because we've already been changing the definition of marriage. "Slippery slope" implies that change is threatening in some way, but I honestly don't see how allowing marriage to become inclusive of interracial couples was threatening, and don't see why expanding it to allowing two people of the same sex, or more than two people (whether polygynous, polyandrous, or mixed in nature) would be any sort of threat to society. Some economic wrinkles would have to be smoothed out, but other than that I fail to see any problem with it.
Anti-miscegenation laws treated people differently based on race in violation of Constitutional principals of equal protection.
The slippery slope argument applies because the same arguments used to advance SSM can be logically used to support any joining.
If folks want to push for equality in marriage, push for equality; not carve out special rights.
doesn't seem right to me but some people seem to think it is fine.
1 man and 5 wives - seems a little primitive really.
1 woman and 5 husbands - out of the question!
and how about Polyamory whilst we are at it (ie: multiple unmarried partners) - anyone support it?
I have always felt that freedom of religion is paramount, so Mormon polygamy should be allowed within that sect. I also believe in the separation of church and state. Marriage should be left up to the individual states as to what they choose to recognize as marriage. Ideally it none of the govt's business, but we have made it so with family law courts and tax laws.
Polyamory is morally wrong, but legally you can live with whomever you want. It's just a commune.
Well first for that to be applicable consanguinity would have to become a status that is Constitutionally protected, which it isn't
Second, the laws against incest would have to overturned
Then if all of that were to happen, your statement would be true
Assuming that the denial of SSM is a discriminatory denial of equal protection, why is it not discriminatory to deny two men the right to marry because of the circumstances of their births, e.g., being born into the same family?
In what other way does society discriminate against someone solely because of the family to which they were born?
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.
