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.
To those who attempt to muddy the waters by throwing in the slippery slope argument of "if we allow same-sex marriage, why not polygamy?", there are obvious huge differences between a marriage of two people and a marriage of multiple people.
Same sex marriage can easily fit the current western dyadic marriage form which is designed around a couple, not a group. The legalities of polygamous marriage would be a nightmare to sort out.
Here are some questions I have rarely seen asked about group marriages which highlight the vast differences between opposite-sex marriage/same-sex marriage and polygamous marriages.
In polygamous marriages, who is married to who? If a man and several women are married what happens if he dies? Do the women remain married to each other? (That would become a same-sex polygamous marriage wouldn't it? Even if all the women are straight)
What happens if the man wants a divorce from some of the women but stay married to others. Would all the women still be married to each other?
What happens if one of the women decide they want a divorce? Does she just divorce the man or all the other wives as well?
How many people would be able to get married to each other? 4, 20, 1000? A whole town? Another poster pointed out immigration issues involved in group marriages: what happens if a US citizen wanted to marry a whole village of people from another country and bring them to the US?
If the polygamous marriage is made up of several men and women, what happens with child custody especially if some of them want a divorce and others don't?
What happens if this group live in separate houses and one wife or husband had some renovations for which they cannot pay? Can a contractor go after one of the other wives/husbands for the money as would happen in a dyadic marriage?
Then we bring in the hugely complicated tangled legal mess of income tax, property, inheritance, social security, alimony, child support etc etc especially when mixed with divorce.
Blind Freddie can see the huge differences between opposite-sex/same-sex dyadic marriages and group marriages.
So why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to use the slippery slope argument of "if we allow same-sex marriage, why not polygamy?" when discussing same-sex marriage?
It;s not even about marriage or gay marriage - It is about the systemic debasement of society at large- to bring everyone down to their knees in the dirt..to take away all human dignity and true pride..it is to make everyone lowly and equal. The reason being is that our leadership is of such low quality- Instead of them bringing society up- they drag it down...It's kind of like the Stalin approach to control..IF you want to be the smartest guy on the block and you are not that bright...You launch a campaign of attrition- Get rid of the intelligent and oppress the non-compliant..and then you as a retard become the smartest and in control- todays governments are retards..
The retards rule the roost and are highly organized - to try to pass of two people of the same sex as a married couple is to spit in the face of the intelligent...it is a great insult and we are conditioned to take it...and if we disagree-------------we are persecuted by the mob.
Good point & there are many other examples of this, not just on forums but more extreme harassment. The fact that they don't realize how immature & illogical it makes them look, further supports the notion that the whole push for legalizing a group's "preferences" is about EGO.
What little respect I had left for our spendaholic President, is gone, as he lowers himself to trying to stick his authority where it doesn't belong, ignoring the voice of the people, desperate to get votes from anyone.
Good point & there are many other examples of this, not just on forums but more extreme harassment. The fact that they don't realize how immature & illogical it makes them look, further supports the notion that the whole push for legalizing a group's "preferences" is about EGO.
Extreme harrassment? You are the one who continues to post the same long discredited, insulting, inflammatory 'smear and fear' bilge from religious anti-gay websites over and over again. And then you get your all huffy and self-righteous whenever people call you out on it.
Are you hoping that if you fling enough slime often enough, some of it will stick?
To those who attempt to muddy the waters by throwing in the slippery slope argument of "if we allow same-sex marriage, why not polygamy?", there are obvious huge differences between a marriage of two people and a marriage of multiple people.
Same sex marriage can easily fit the current western dyadic marriage form which is designed around a couple, not a group. The legalities of polygamous marriage would be a nightmare to sort out.
Here are some questions I have rarely seen asked about group marriages which highlight the vast differences between opposite-sex marriage/same-sex marriage and polygamous marriages.
In polygamous marriages, who is married to who? If a man and several women are married what happens if he dies? Do the women remain married to each other? (That would become a same-sex polygamous marriage wouldn't it? Even if all the women are straight)
What happens if the man wants a divorce from some of the women but stay married to others. Would all the women still be married to each other?
What happens if one of the women decide they want a divorce? Does she just divorce the man or all the other wives as well?
How many people would be able to get married to each other? 4, 20, 1000? A whole town? Another poster pointed out immigration issues involved in group marriages: what happens if a US citizen wanted to marry a whole village of people from another country and bring them to the US?
If the polygamous marriage is made up of several men and women, what happens with child custody especially if some of them want a divorce and others don't?
What happens if this group live in separate houses and one wife or husband had some renovations for which they cannot pay? Can a contractor go after one of the other wives/husbands for the money as would happen in a dyadic marriage?
Then we bring in the hugely complicated tangled legal mess of income tax, property, inheritance, social security, alimony, child support etc etc especially when mixed with divorce.
Blind Freddie can see the huge differences between opposite-sex/same-sex dyadic marriages and group marriages.
So why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to use the slippery slope argument of "if we allow same-sex marriage, why not polygamy?" when discussing same-sex marriage?
I think this is a very thought provoking post. I had not considered these arguments (not that I was for plural marriage anyway).
Ever notice that the anti-gay crowd argues from SO many different angles that they quite frequently wind up refuting their own previous arguments? It would make me chuckle if itnwasn't for knowing thier true feelings about me and my LGBT brothers and sisters.
Hopefully, they will one day learn to love equally.
I think this is a very thought provoking post. I had not considered these arguments (not that I was for plural marriage anyway).
Thank you.
Other arguments that differentiate same-sex marriage from plural marriage but highlight the similarities with opposite-sex marriage are:
Because of all those unanswered questions around the legalities and logistics of plural marriage, there is a strong 'rational basis' for the government not to legalise plural marriage. However there appears to be no 'rational basis' to deny marriage to same-sex couples. (Recent court cases have underscored this).
Plural marriages throughout history have often been abusive for women and girls. (However that's not to say that plural marriage could not work between consensual adults if there is a reasonable balance of power and all the tangled legalities and logistics could ever be worked out.)
From all the research over the past 40 years or so, it's becoming obvious that humans are born with their sexual orientation due to a combination of genetic factors and the hormonal effects on fetal brain development in the uterine environment. Whether it's heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or somewhere along a continuum. I am unaware of any scientific literature supporting the idea that people are born to be polygamous.
If gays and lesbians etc are born to be homosexual, is it not in society's best interest for gay and lesbian couples to be together rather than trying to force them into unhappy destructive marriages with heterosexual people? Or force them to be single and celibate? Research shows that people are happier and healthier being in a stable marriage rather than defacto relationships or single. Why deny the health benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples?
Arguments that marriage is only for 'procreation' and heterosexual couples raising children fall flat when we look at the census data and find that only about a half of married heterosexual couples are raising children and about a third of lesbian couples and quarter of gay male couples are raising children.
Arguments that only heterosexual married couples can be good parents are ridiculous when we look at all the stats on divorce, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect etc with many heterosexual parents. All the research shows that children do just as well in all aspects when raised by gay or lesbian parents. Gay and lesbian couples will still be raising children even they are not allowed to be married, so why deny the children of gay and lesbian couples the benefits of having parents in a stable marriage?
All the research on gay and lesbian relationships show that they are not much different from heterosexual relationships. Often communication is better because there isn't the inherent imbalance of power that can be found between men and women in many heterosexual relationships. Things like household chores and parenting responsibilities are divided much more evenly between gay and lesbian couples.
How about the fact that to deny same sex marriage is discrimination based on gender?
A man can enter a legally binding marriage contract with a woman, but a woman can not.
There is no other contract, that I am aware of that is allowed to discriminate based on the sex of the parties.
Gays should be allowed to marry, just like heterosexuals. They should have that choice, just like heterosexuals. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Talk about a completely conditioned, non thinking robotic nit wit...sorry- Nothing personal but it's this attitude...the new angle of looking at humanity---Those that grant full support to gay marriage are people who believe - by doing so you are a NICE PERSON...a non-hater- a progressive...These types of people want EVERYBODY to like them.
Society has gotten so far removed from reality- That our liberal left has you convinced that a man's anus is actually a vagina...That in time it will be a right to marry the family dog and have a relationship with it...and if someone protests they will be called a dogaphobe.
People can do what they want- but why do gays...who are of the same sex want to mimic straight people? Why other than for financial and civic along with legal needs do they want to be like a man and a woman in union?
Why do two woman want to pretend- yes I said PRETEND...that one is a man...and why do lesbians go out of their way to mimic men? What's wrong with acting like a female?
Why do gays need to mimic the walk and vocal cadence of a female? I don't get it..Why don't they act as them selves?
What is so good about being straight that us "norms" are envied and copied at every trun?
All I can say is do what you want- and forming a culture with powerful rights based on a game of PRETEND....is in reality absurd..
How after a million years - suddenly SEX is redefined and that re-definition is force on society?
Who the hell thought of this stuff and why? It's almost like some sort of Nazi plot to de-sex the world---was this phenomena planned and put in place by those that want to de-populate the world? I am starting to wonder what is at the core of this issue.
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.
