# Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Lead to Polygamous Marriage.  Really?



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

One of the arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage has been that it opens the floodgates to changing the definition of marriage to include all sorts of things, including polygamous marriage.  This has routinely been pooh-poohed by proponents of same-sex marriage, who insist that same-sex marriage does not create a 'slippery slope' condition and won't lead to any such thing.

I think the facts are becoming clear.   This is about Canada - I don't think it will be long before similar court cases appear in the USA...

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31673



> *Marriage in Canada Up For Grabs*
> 
> By Father John Flynn, LC
> ROME, FEB. 6, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Polygamy should be allowed as part of the exercise of religious freedom, according to a splinter Mormon group in Canada.
> Over  the last few months British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Robert  Bauman has been hearing arguments about whether polygamy should be  legal. According to the Bountiful community of the Fundamentalist Church  of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the Canadian Charter of Rights and  Freedoms means that as part of their religious rights men should be  allowed multiple wives.



It's the same with gun control; every time a regulation is insisted upon, the promise is that there will be no further demands.  Every time, this promise doesn't last long.  Same-sex marriage in Canada; and now polygamy?  What's next?  And let's not pretend there won't be a 'next'.  Of course there will.  Any such statement is silly on its face.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

This is one of those slippery slopes, where I say grab the sled and go.  For me, it's a question of liberty.  Other then religious reasons, why would the government make a law against this?  If we live in a secular society, what right does anyone have to force people not to do this?  As far as families are concerned, having more adults around in committed relationships has the potential to bring many benefits.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> This is one of those slippery slopes, where I say grab the sled and go.  For me, it's a question of liberty.  Other then religious reasons, why would the government make a law against this?  If we live in a secular society, what right does anyone have to force people not to do this?  As far as families are concerned, having more adults around in committed relationships has the potential to bring many benefits.



Did you read the article?  There are many reasons for a government to restrict polygamous marriage, especially in the sense being asked by the LDS church in Canada.  Multiple underage wives of elderly men, neglected children, water torture as part of the rituals of raising the children, and young males run out of the community as potential competitors, among many others.

Why?  There is lots of why here.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 6, 2011)

> It can only be hoped that Canada, which perhaps not coincidentally has  legalized same-sex marriage, will not introduce by judicial fiat a  further blow to marriage by allowing the exploitation of women and  children.



Am I missing something here?  How does one lead to another?  Or is this just the bias of the reporter?

The key issue in this article appears to center around the abuse of marriage partners and children in a particular religious sect that is being allowed to violate a law - and whose members are not being prosecuted for polygamy for fear of lawsuit.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

Kacey said:


> Am I missing something here?  How does one lead to another?  Or is this just the bias of the reporter?
> 
> The key issue in this article appears to center around the abuse of marriage partners and children in a particular religious sect that is being allowed to violate a law - and whose members are not being prosecuted for polygamy for fear of lawsuit.



The legalization of same-sex marriage opened the door by damaging the argument for traditional definitions of marriage.  Note what was said in court in the government's behalf:



> John Witte, Jr., the director of the Law and Religion Center at Emory  University testified that there is a consistent, *2,500-year tradition of  marriage as the monogamous union of two people*, according to a report  in the Jan. 10 edition of the Vancouver Sun.



Except that argument has holes in it, and the defense is going to tear it apart.  There is no 2,500 year tradition of marriage between *TWO PEOPLE*.  There is a 2,500 year tradition of marriage between a man and a woman.  By allowing redefinition of what marriage traditionally is, the government has opened the door to allow any definition of marriage to be put forward.  If not one man and one woman, then why NOT more than one man and a woman?

John Witte, Jr., is stuck.  He has to carefully word his statement and it is NOT correct.  The defense will see that and rip him a new one.  The fact that the Canadian government has changed what marriage is means that all bets are off.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Did you read the article?  There are many reasons for a government to restrict polygamous marriage, especially in the sense being asked by the LDS church in Canada.  Multiple underage wives of elderly men, neglected children, water torture as part of the rituals of raising the children, and young males run out of the community as potential competitors, among many others.
> 
> Why?  There is lots of why here.



I read the article and all of those things could happen in traditional marriage as well.  What reason is there to expect that polygamous marriage would affect any change?  Is there any scientific data on this question anywhere?  I haven't seen it.  For all of the anecdotal horror stories, I can show you examples of polygamous marriages that work out just fine.  The biggest stress in these families lives is that the government made the lifestyle illegal.  

Isn't it like any other issue related to personal liberty, like smoking, drinking, helmets, guns, there are pros and cons, but what right does the government have to tell the individual they cannot do this?


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Did you read the article?  There are many reasons for a government to restrict polygamous marriage, especially in the sense being asked by the LDS church in Canada.  Multiple underage wives of elderly men, neglected children, water torture as part of the rituals of raising the children, and young males run out of the community as potential competitors, among many others.
> 
> Why?  There is lots of why here.




Same Sex marriage is also the gateway drug to marrying your dog or ficus, right?

However, there have been guidelines about who can legally enter into a marriage contract (which the holy institution really is: a legal contract). That does generally exclude the underage and otherwise (mentally) infirm.

Also, there are laws on the books that do deal with torture and abuse. It's not like the ***** does not already happen. So now it happens to not legally married women who coinhabbit with other women and an old man. 

That is kind of like saying because people drive drunk, while texting or sleepy we outlaw driving. 

I am assuming the polygamy clause would also work in reverse....though for the life of me I don't know why a woman would want more than one husband on a continuous basis...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I read the article and all of those things could happen in traditional marriage as well.  What reason is there to expect that polygamous marriage would affect any change?  Is there any scientific data on this question anywhere?  I haven't seen it.



If you read the article and did not see the accusations, then you did not want to see them.  In the USA (and, I presume, Canada), the institution of Polygamy is tied to a particular religious belief; what goes with one, goes with the other.  I have not heard of waterboarding infants in non-polygamous marriages; apparently this is a ritual of this particular sect.  Is it part of the definition of polygamy?  No, but it appears to be inextricably intertwined with the groups that practice the religion and the institution of polygamy.  It is disingenuous to pretend that they are not therefore linked.

As to scientific data; I don't have any, and I have no idea if there is any.  However, if having scientific proof of damage is required to make something illegal, then we may as well legalize marriage between people and household pets; I haven't seen any scientific data showing the damage done to society on that, either.

The point is this - when a government changes the definition of marriage, then it opens the door to additional modifications.  This was raised as a potential issue by those against same-sex marriage and it was laughed at by those who favored same-sex marriage.  Yet here we are.  This cannot be denied; it's fact.  First the one, then the other.  AS PREDICTED.  Please tell me that same-sex marriage proponents did NOT argue that polygamy would not be on the table just because same-sex marriage was permitted.  I can go through the threads and pull out line and freaking verse.  No, it won't happen, we were assured.  Yet ta-da, here it is.

What it does is make same-sex marriage proponents who insisted that same-sex marriage would not lead to challenges on marriage from groups such as polygamists mistaken at best; at worst, it makes them liars.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 6, 2011)

I keep saying it over and over..
Government needs to get the hell out of marriage business all together and leave it to reigious entities to deal with marriage for their members as they see fit.

Instead government needs to serparate themselves from the religious aspects associated with marriage, and make it simply about legal issues, benefits for two or more people sharing a home and working towards a common goal, parents of children, and legal responsibilities to children, and other people, tax breaks, etc.etc.

the rest of this is nonsense.
Marriage to me is never going to be anything other then what my spiritual viewpoint is... a man and a woman who join in the desire to raise a family.
homosexuals can have their version of marriage, polygamists can have theirs, hollywood can have theirs..just don't make me pay for it, and don't make me be a part of it if I dont agree with it. do whatever the hell you want with your marriage as long as you are not breaking laws like child abuse, or any other criminal activity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is no 2,500 year tradition of marriage between *TWO PEOPLE*.  There is a 2,500 year tradition of marriage between a man and a woman.  By allowing redefinition of what marriage traditionally is, the government has opened the door to allow any definition of marriage to be put forward.  If not one man and one woman, then why NOT more than one man and a woman?



This argument is fallacious.  You could argue anything based of the fact that it's tradition.  I could argue the fact that polygamous has thousands of years tradition and is therefore viable and that would be fallacious as well.

Is there anything that exists in polygamous marriages that does not exist in traditional marriage (other then the potential for a regular threesome  ) that poses such a huge danger to society that it needs to be prohibited?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> Same Sex marriage is also the gateway drug to marrying your dog or ficus, right?



I'm sorry, that argument is no longer available to you.  You can't argue that the slippery slope doesn't exist, because there it is right in front of you.

When the traditional definition of marriage is changed, it opens the door to further challenges. The main argument is then _"if that's now OK based on changing standards, then why can't this be changed also?"_

So no, same-sex marriage doesn't lead to polygamous marriage; the people who want to marry same-sex are not the same people who want to marry multiple spouses, generally.  However, when marriage remained what it always had been, one man and one woman, then it was simple to defeat any challenges to it - it is what it is, and changing societal values don't change the basis of our society (the family).

Change it one time, and you open the door to changing it over and over again.

The institution of marriage will shortly come to mean nothing at all.  Society will be damaged.  And yes, it's the fault of the same-sex marriage proponents.

Slippery slope proven.  It's not possible to argue it anymore, this is proof that the accusations this would happen were completely accurate.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> This argument is fallacious.  You could argue anything based of the fact that it's tradition.  I could argue the fact that polygamous has thousands of years tradition and is therefore viable and that would be fallacious as well.
> 
> Is there anything that exists in polygamous marriages that does not exist in traditional marriage (other then the potential for a regular threesome  ) that poses such a huge danger to society that it needs to be prohibited?



Our society is based upon the family.  Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children.  Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.

There is no other argument possible.  Our society is not based on polygamous marriages.  That's not speculation, that's fact.

In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement.  I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage.  Yet it has.  They were wrong - at best.  At worst, they're liars.  The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me.  You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it.  The same-sex marriage proponents lied.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you read the article and did not see the accusations, then you did not want to see them.  In the USA (and, I presume, Canada), the institution of Polygamy is tied to a particular religious belief; what goes with one, goes with the other.  I have not heard of waterboarding infants in non-polygamous marriages; apparently this is a ritual of this particular sect.  Is it part of the definition of polygamy?  No, but it appears to be inextricably intertwined with the groups that practice the religion and the institution of polygamy.  It is disingenuous to pretend that they are not therefore linked.



I agree that this sect is practicing some destructive family dynamics, but it is fallacious to say these are tied to polygamy.  The existence of polygamous families who do not do these things proves this.  I can understand if a society wants to prohibit child marriages, "waterboarding" (now that's some inflammatory language LOL) infants, and other forms of violence.  However, I can see no reason to ban polygamy itself.  The same argument for gay marriages DOES apply here.  Grab your sled and hit the slopes for personal liberty!


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry, that argument is no longer available to you.  You can't argue that the slippery slope doesn't exist, because there it is right in front of you.
> 
> When the traditional definition of marriage is changed, it opens the door to further challenges. The main argument is then _"if that's now OK based on changing standards, then why can't this be changed also?"_
> 
> ...




The institution of marriage is a recent thing:
It is a means of the patriach to somewhat reassure the spawn he hunts to feed is the fruit of his loin. Nothing more. 

It has not been a religious thing for all that long either. Previous to the reformation marriage was the means to raise kids. To provide for old age etc...it's a bit complexer than that, but not by much. Shucks, the notion that you actually have to _like_ your partner is a new one. Somewhere born in the Victorian/romantic era of the 19th century.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I agree that this sect is practicing some destructive family dynamics, but it is fallacious to say these are tied to polygamy.  The existence of polygamous families who do not do these things proves this.  I can understand if a society wants to prohibit child marriages, "waterboarding" (now that's some inflammatory language LOL) infants, and other forms of violence.  However, I can see no reason to ban polygamy itself.  The same argument for gay marriages DOES apply here.  Grab your sled and hit the slopes for personal liberty!



Just don't want to address my initial point, do you?

Same-sex marriage proponents argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage legalization.  Yet here we are.  And you won't even acknowledge it.  I think I've made it sufficiently clear; the same-sex marriage proponents not only lied; but now they support polygamous marriage as well.  No slippery slope, they said.  They lied.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> The institution of marriage is a recent thing:
> It is a means of the patriach to somewhat reassure the spawn he hunts to feed is the fruit of his loin. Nothing more.



Not in the history of western society.  Our shared society is of societies based on collections of families, and those families are made up of the so-called 'nuclear family.'  Mother, father, children.

Revisionist historical attempts aside, that is fact.  Inarguable.   It is what it is, you cannot redefine history.



> It has not been a religious thing for all that long either. Previous to the reformation marriage was the means to raise kids. To provide for old age etc...it's a bit complexer than that, but not by much. Shucks, the notion that you actually have to _like_ your partner is a new one. Somewhere born in the Victorian/romantic era of the 19th century.



Our society is based on marriage between a man and a woman and their subsequent production of a family.  That's what it is.  There is no other definition.

OUR SOCIETY.  Not a society that no longer exists; the one that we live in.


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Our society is based upon the family.  Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children.  Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.
> 
> There is no other argument possible.  Our society is not based on polygamous marriages.  That's not speculation, that's fact.
> 
> In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement.  I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage.  Yet it has.  They were wrong - at best.  At worst, they're liars.  The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me.  You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it.  The same-sex marriage proponents lied.




Well, your traditions went out the door with divorce laws. There is hardly a family that is 'a man, a woman and children' shucks, there are enough couples who are - by choice - without children. Not to mention enough 'families' who are without either man or woman...

You are keeping an argument alive that is still stuck in the last century: Up until the 1960s or even 70s a woman was to get married and have children. That was her sole purpose in life. But we have since moved away from that. I think those sentiments, that a woman can actually have a job outside the home was also met with 'you open the door to...' arguments.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Our society is based upon the family.  Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children.  Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.
> 
> There is no other argument possible.  Our society is not based on polygamous marriages.  That's not speculation, that's fact.
> 
> In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement.  I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage.  Yet it has.  They were wrong - at best.  At worst, they're liars.  The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me.  You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it.  The same-sex marriage proponents lied.



I agree with you that proponents of same sex marriage made an error by claiming that their argument wouldn't apply to polygamy as well.  It's obvious that it does and I've pointed that out many times in debates about this in the past.

Societies change.  We already have plenty of polygamous families around us and it doesn't affect you at all.  Other then an illogical religious argument and spurious associations, what reason is there to ban this?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I agree with you that proponents of same sex marriage made an error by claiming that their argument wouldn't apply to polygamy as well.  It's obvious that it does and I've pointed that out many times in debates about this in the past.



Thank you.  That was my primary thesis if you read the subject line of my post.



> Societies change.  We already have plenty of polygamous families around us and it doesn't affect you at all.  Other then an illogical religious argument and spurious associations, what reason is there to ban this?



How about personal preference that our society remain traditional?


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not in the history of western society.  Our shared society is of societies based on collections of families, and those families are made up of the so-called 'nuclear family.'  Mother, father, children.
> 
> Revisionist historical attempts aside, that is fact.  Inarguable.   It is what it is, you cannot redefine history.
> 
> ...



Just because you repeat the argument does not make it any more true.

Look past the western society and see how necessary 'marriage' is: the Chinese Naxi don't have a family tradition like we do. And oddly enough no marriage in that sense. 
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Minorities/min-Naxi.html
several African tribes who have not yet been swallowed up my Islam have woman's choice in terms of selection of the mate, and when things don't turn out right, she can pick a new one the following year.

Marriage is a matter of lineage. Marriage is a matter of economic needs. But is non of the things other than that. Naturally, if you actually like your mate, it has always been a bonus.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, your traditions went out the door with divorce laws. There is hardly a family that is 'a man, a woman and children' shucks, there are enough couples who are - by choice - without children. Not to mention enough 'families' who are without either man or woman...



Neither divorce (which I was once) nor being childless (which I am) changes the definition of marriage.



> You are keeping an argument alive that is still stuck in the last century: Up until the 1960s or even 70s a woman was to get married and have children. That was her sole purpose in life. But we have since moved away from that. I think those sentiments, that a woman can actually have a job outside the home was also met with 'you open the door to...' arguments.



I disagree.  Recognizing the right of women to vote, own property, be educated, and have a career has not opened to the door to anything else, because there isn't anything beyond that; every person enjoys those freedoms no matter what kind of relationship they find themselves in, as they should.

And my argument is *not* about the joys or pains of non-traditional marriages; read my subject line again.  My argument is that same-sex marriage proponents claimed that recognizing same-sex marriages would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage.  They have.  Ta-da.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> Just because you repeat the argument does not make it any more true.



I'm not arguing; I'm stating a fact.  Our society, the one you and I both live in, is based on a traditional definition of marriage the defines it as being between one man and one woman.  Period, ranking full stop.  It's not argument, it is fact.  You cannot assail it, it is what is.



> Look past the western society and see how necessary 'marriage' is: the Chinese Naxi don't have a family tradition like we do. And oddly enough no marriage in that sense.
> http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Minorities/min-Naxi.html
> several African tribes who have not yet been swallowed up my Islam have woman's choice in terms of selection of the mate, and when things don't turn out right, she can pick a new one the following year.
> 
> Marriage is a matter of lineage. Marriage is a matter of economic needs. But is non of the things other than that. Naturally, if you actually like your mate, it has always been a bonus.



Marriage is traditional in our society, and it has always been defined as being between a man and a woman IN OUR SOCIETY.  Bringing up other epochs and other societies is interesting stuff, but it is not our history or our society.  You do not live in that society and neither do I.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How about personal preference that our society remain traditional?



Do you really want to live in that kind of society, Bill?  I don't.  I want to live in a free society where people's personal preferences are personal.  In a free society, a government can legislate against forms of violence and breach of contract.  If you want to start adding things, THAT is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.  I'll take this slippery slope over that one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Do you really want to live in that kind of society, Bill?



Yes.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 6, 2011)

Since Bill has a line from Orwell in his signature, it is only fair to point out how many of our more liberal members are engaging in New Speak.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes.



I hope you realize that at a fundamental level, you're no different then the Taleban. 

Enjoy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Since Bill has a line from Orwell in his signature, it is only fair to point out how many of our more liberal members are engaging in New Speak.



Pot kettle black.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I hope you realize that at a fundamental level, you're no different then the Taleban.  Enjoy.


IMO, that is pretty damn close to a personal attack. That said, Maunakumu, you realize, do you not, that on a fundamental level, you are no different than bull crap, i.e., you're both composed of matter of use to some and useless to others...


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Neither divorce (which I was once) nor being childless (which I am) changes the definition of marriage.



no, not the definition of marriage, but the definition of family, which you base your definition of marriage on.





> I disagree.  Recognizing the right of women to vote, own property, be educated, and have a career has not opened to the door to anything else, because there isn't anything beyond that; every person enjoys those freedoms no matter what kind of relationship they find themselves in, as they should.
> 
> And my argument is *not* about the joys or pains of non-traditional marriages; read my subject line again.  My argument is that same-sex marriage proponents claimed that recognizing same-sex marriages would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage.  They have.  Ta-da.



You can't have it both ways:
Your traditions are already corrupted by the advances of society. because the truly traditional marriage, the woman surrenders all rights and all hopes at the alter. It's only since the last century that marriages can be desolved with no blame towards the woman. Or that violent transgressions towards wives have become criminal. 


I don't think the same sex marriage has had more influence in the call for making multiple spouse marriages legal. I do feintly recall that those groups ahve always carefully lobbied for that. naturally not as upfront. And no, that is a recollection from the deep recesses of my mind, not fact. 

naturally there are points brought up to strengthen once position. In light of all the weirdos and perverts hiding under the polygamist label, it makes a pretty good boogy man for those who are on the fence about same sex marriage. 

The point is that marriage is not a moral thing, nothing holy about it. In the end all that counts is that the numbers under the bottom line are black. 

It's about health insurance, property rights, wills, living or otherwise. Legal stuff.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I hope you realize that at a fundamental level, you're no different then the Taleban.  Enjoy.



Really?

Let's see...

Me: Against same-sex marriage.
Taliban:  Against same-sex marriage.

Me: Recognizes the right of same-sex couples to live together in civil union.
Taliban: Cuts off the heads of homosexual couples.

I think we're pretty different on a fundamental (nice irony, there by the way, thanks) basis.

But don't bother apologizing.  I'm used to being compared to terrorists for wanting marriage to remain defined as being between a man and a woman.  Yeah, that's a horrible thing.  I ought to have my head cut off for believing that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> The point is that marriage is not a moral thing, nothing holy about it. In the end all that counts is that the numbers under the bottom line are black.



You're assuming I am claiming a moral basis for marriage; I am not.  I am claiming an historical basis in our society, which is factual.  You cannot argue against that, so you shuffle sideways around it.  Our society is based on a traditional interpretation of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Fact.



> It's about health insurance, property rights, wills, living or otherwise. Legal stuff.



All of which can be handled without redefining what marriage is.  Contract law works just fine, and in areas where same-sex couples are treated inequitably compared to married couples, the law can be easily changed to address those disparities.  A redefinition of marriage is not required.

In any case, again, this is not my thesis.  You don't seem to want to address that, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Really?
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> ...



It's the idea that you can legislate your personal preference.  If you don't like the comparison, fine, but it's true.  You hold the fundamental idea that makes their society possible.  Granted, you may not want to take it to that extreme, but others will and they can use YOUR arguments to speed down that slippery slope.  

If you want to live in a free society, then you have to accept personal decisions that you don't agree with as long as they don't infringe upon your property rights and are violent towards you.  If you want to start adding prohibitions, you must accept the company of others who also choose to do so.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 6, 2011)

meh.  They can change the definition all they want, marriage is a broken institution.  Gays didn't do it and Mormons didn't do it, men and women did it.  Many people may _enjoy_ committing to a marriage, but it no longer serves any real purpose.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Big Don said:


> IMO, that is pretty damn close to a personal attack. That said, Maunakumu, you realize, do you not, that on a fundamental level, you are no different than bull crap, i.e., you're both composed of matter of use to some and useless to others...



It's not a personal attack.  It's a simple comparison that happens to hold true.  If you think you can legislate your personal preference when it causes no violence and does not infringe upon your property rights, you hold the fundamental idea that makes the society the Taleban created possible.  I don't care if it's inflammatory, considering the politics, because logically you cannot point fingers at the Taleban and say "oh your bad" because they'll throw your arguments right back in your face.

IMO, it's a question of personal liberty.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> meh.  They can change the definition all they want, marriage is a broken institution.  Gays didn't do it and Mormons didn't do it, men and women did it.  Many people may _enjoy_ committing to a marriage, but it no longer serves any real purpose.



I don't know about that, Cory.  Marriage works out great for me.  We are happy and have great children and we are part of a tradition that accepts same sex marriage and polyamorous relationships.  Yes, some relationships don't work out, but that happens in any tradition in which one belongs.  For the government's purposes, its a contract that needs to be enforced.  Let the various religions do what they will as long as it's non-violent and respects property rights.  Why should we be so concerned about other people's business?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> It's the idea that you can legislate your personal preference.  If you don't like the comparison, fine, but it's true.  You hold the fundamental idea that makes their society possible.  Granted, you may not want to take it to that extreme, but others will and they can use YOUR arguments to speed down that slippery slope.



Anyone who believes that society can make laws that represent the will of the people believes what I believe.  Of course I want my personal preferences to be law.  So do you.  All of us do.  What makes us different from the Taleban is that I accept that I cannot have it my way all the time.  The Taleban of course does not.



> If you want to live in a free society, then you have to accept personal decisions that you don't agree with as long as they don't infringe upon your property rights and are violent towards you.  If you want to start adding prohibitions, you must accept the company of others who also choose to do so.



Nope. I accept that they have the right to cohabitate as they wish, and to have the same rights that married couples do.  I do not have to accept that marriage has to be redefined for that to be accomplished.  I am for freedom; I am against the redefinition of marriage to mean something it traditional has not meant in our society.

I do live in a free society; I have to accept that if some states redefine marriage, then that's what happens.  Freedom means compromise too. It does not mean I have to *change my opinion* though; and I don't.  I remain against same-sex marriage - and against polygamous marriage too.

Freedom also means freedom of conscience.  My conscience says no to same-sex marriage.  Would you deny me the right to have the freedom of my own conscience?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> meh.  They can change the definition all they want, marriage is a broken institution.  Gays didn't do it and Mormons didn't do it, men and women did it.  Many people may _enjoy_ committing to a marriage, but it no longer serves any real purpose.



Be that as it may; I said that the people who argued for same-sex marriage argued that it would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage, yet it has.  Arguing that marriage is broken after repeated assaults on it broke it doesn't seem very clever to me.  It's like arguing that speed limits don't mean anything now that no one obeys them anyway.  Possibly true, but not an argument for not having speed limits.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> It's not a personal attack.



Yes, it was, but I don't take offense.



> IMO, it's a question of personal liberty.


It would be a question of personal liberty if same-sex couples were not allowed to cohabitate; but they are.  It is a question of personal liberty in that same-sex couples do not have the exact same rights as married couples; this can and should be addressed by modifying the laws regarding civil unions and contract law.  No modification of the definition of marriage is required for the needs of personal liberty to be satisfied.

It would be like redefining the definition of 'man' to mean men and women, because men have more rights than women.  The correct solution is to make their rights equal, not to change the language to redefine what 'male' means.  Address the issue, not the institution.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, it was, but I don't take offense.



It wasn't meant to be a personal attack.  I think there is a lot of irrational energy around the world Taleban that is clouding the broader philosophic point.  You (and others who take your view) share the fundamental aspect that makes the Taleban society possible.  The idea that you can legislate your personal preferences beyond a simple prohibition of violence and respect for property rights is how societies like the Taleban become possible.  The arguments you use to prohibit various forms of marriage can be thrown right back in your face by other groups of people who wish to prohibit other things that people do.  

From a philosophic point of view, your views are consistent with the Taleban...and people who share my "traditions" are your victims.  

Here's the one question I really want to know.  What makes your traditions so special that they can take precedence over others?  Is it the force of the majority?  Is it the force of your weapons?  Or do you believe that you are right and others are wrong and that's that?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> It wasn't meant to be a personal attack.  I think there is a lot of irrational energy around the world Taleban that is clouding the broader philosophic point.  You (and others who take your view) share the fundamental aspect that makes the Taleban society possible.  The idea that you can legislate your personal preferences beyond a simple prohibition of violence and respect for property rights is how societies like the Taleban become possible.  The arguments you use to prohibit various forms of marriage can be thrown right back in your face by other groups of people who wish to prohibit other things that people do.
> 
> From a philosophic point of view, your views are consistent with the Taleban...and people who share my "traditions" are your victims.



I don't have victims because I don't make the laws or enforce them.  I merely vote as any citizen does.  If having a preference and stating and voting for it makes me Taleban, I think it is your definition of Taleban that needs some exploring.



> Here's the one question I really want to know.  What makes your traditions so special that they can take precedence over others?  Is it the force of the majority?  Is it the force of your weapons?  Or do you believe that you are right and others are wrong and that's that?



Not my traditions; our traditions.  Societies have normative behaviors (norms).  Heterosexual marriage is a norm of our society.  These are facts.

What I want is for our society to keep our societal norms in this sense.  I recognize that some norms can infringe on civil liberties, and that when they do, society must change in a free society based on civil liberties.  The right to be treated equally is a civil right.  The right to be married to a person of the same sex is not.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One of the arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage has been that it opens the floodgates to changing the definition of marriage to include all sorts of things, including polygamous marriage.



Thats bs. Just because a group such as the mormons are wanting their own sexist polygamous marriages, men can have multiple wives but not the reverse, doesnt mean legalizing another marriage between two people opens up the door to more than two people or to me being allowed to marry my laptop.  Its still only two people, there's nothing seist about it, unlike the polygamists the same sex couples arent known for pushing underage girls into marriage and rape, the logic doesnt follow. 

Bill you're a catholic by your own admission and I think you're fishing for something.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Be that as it may; I said that the people who argued for same-sex marriage argued that it would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage, yet it has.


 
People lie to get their agendas passed.  That should come as no surprise.  Another possibility is that those who argued for same-sex marriage would not or could not see the consequences.  That should come as no surprise, either.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Arguing that marriage is broken after repeated assaults on it broke it doesn't seem very clever to me. It's like arguing that speed limits don't mean anything now that no one obeys them anyway. Possibly true, but not an argument for not having speed limits.


 
Wasn't trying to be clever, merely pointing out that with this thread you are standing with your finger in the dyke while the water flows through the gaping holes around you.  Let anybody marry anything or anyone.  Marriage is dead.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I don't know about that, Cory. *Marriage works out great for me. We are happy and have great children and we are part of a tradition that accepts same sex marriage and polyamorous relationships.* Yes, some relationships don't work out, but that happens in any tradition in which one belongs. For the government's purposes, its a contract that needs to be enforced. Let the various religions do what they will as long as it's non-violent and respects property rights. Why should we be so concerned about other people's business?


 
I'm very happy for you, but what part of this actually _required_ marriage?  Other than the choice to do so, how does the state of marriage serve your ability to be happy and have great children?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Thats bs. Just because a group such as the mormons are wanting their own sexist polygamous marriages, men can have multiple wives but not the reverse, doesnt mean legalizing another marriage between two people opens up the door to more than two people or to me being allowed to marry my laptop.  Its still only two people, there's nothing seist about it, unlike the polygamists the same sex couples arent known for pushing underage girls into marriage and rape, the logic doesnt follow.



The logic is inescapable, because marriage is not traditionally 'two people' but a 'man and a woman'.  Changing marriage to mean 'two people' is redefining it.  Once you've redefined something, you've opened the door to further revisions.



> Bill you're a catholic by your own admission and I think you're fishing for something.



No hidden agenda, I promise.  My point was implicit in the subject line of my original post.  I'm irritated that same-sex marriage proponents argued that same-sex marriage would not lead to demands for polygamous marriage, because they were clearly either wrong or lying.  No other point to be made by me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> Wasn't trying to be clever, merely pointing out that with this thread you are standing with your finger in the dyke while the water flows through the gaping holes around you.  Let anybody marry anything or anyone.  Marriage is dead.



We are not in total disagreement here.  My own position over the years is that the state should not be in the religion business, and that marriage is a sacred institution, not a civil one, even though there is some overlap.  I believe that governments should not recognize marriage at all - any kind of marriage.  Leave that to the religions, just register civil unions.  In that way, the requirements of liberty are served, and those who believe in a given faith can take their argument for or against same-sex or polygamous marriage to the heads of their particular faiths if they wish.

However, since our government still recognizes a civil union as a 'marriage' and it has a traditional and legal definition (a man and a woman in union), then I do not wish to see it changed from that.

In any case, we agree that now that (in Canada) the federal government has opened the door, now there are and will be many demands for marriage recognition between this, that, and the other thing.  You see this as a sad commentary on a broken society; I see it as another depredation on a society not yet dead.  But we're not that far apart.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

What if the government simply enforced civil unions between consenting individuals regardless of their religious traditions?  Could you support that?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> What if the government simply enforced civil unions between consenting individuals regardless of their religious traditions?  Could you support that?



Absolutely.  Heterosexual couples should not have legal advantages over other domestic couples.


----------



## Steve (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One of the arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage has been that it opens the floodgates to changing the definition of marriage to include all sorts of things, including polygamous marriage.  This has routinely been pooh-poohed by proponents of same-sex marriage, who insist that same-sex marriage does not create a 'slippery slope' condition and won't lead to any such thing.
> 
> I think the facts are becoming clear.   This is about Canada - I don't think it will be long before similar court cases appear in the USA...
> 
> ...


It's a different argument, really.  The most compelling legal argument against any ban on same sex marriage is a gender discrimination claim.  Gender is a protected category, just as race is a protected category.  In Loving vs Virginia, we saw the exact argument that is made against same sex marriage made at the time to prevent interracial marriage.  We're not, the argument goes, discriminating at all.  While we won't give a black person a marriage license to marry a white person, we won't give the white person a marriage license either.

In the same way, we won't give men marriage licenses to marry another man, but we also won't give them to women.  See?  No discrimination...  except that it doesn't quite work that way.  

There is no protected category that would in any way legitimize polygamy.  Ultimately, if polygamy were ever legalized, it would be completely unrelated to whether same sex marriage is legalize.  There is no slippery slope] because the legal arguments in favor of legalizing same sex marriage don't apply to any category not specifically protected by law (race, religion, gender, etc).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> There is no slippery slope] because the legal arguments in favor of legalizing same sex marriage don't apply to any category not specifically protected by law (race, religion, gender, etc).



There is a slippery slope, which was made clear by the careful wording I quoted from the court case; the argument made by the state was that marriage 'between two people' was a 2,500 year old institution.  It is not that at all, it's a 2,500 year old institution between a man and a woman.  That means that the argument that polygamous marriages go against tradition can no longer be used in Canada; by changing the definition of marriage, they tossed that out.

That's the slippery slope.  Man + woman = marriage is unfair to men + men and women + women.  So we (Canada) change it.  Now that we've changed it, the number is hardly relevant.  Two, three, four, what differences does it make?  You can't argue that marriage is traditionally only between two -  because it is also traditionally between a man and a woman, and that was conveniently tossed out - so you can toss out the maximum number as well.

Simple stuff, really.  Marriage is traditionally:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings.

Now, we change one of those.  Now it doesn't have to be a man and a woman.  If that's not really required, then why two people?  Why not closely related?  Why not more than two?  Why both have to be human?

Once you open the door, all the rules change.  Same-sex marriage did that in Canada, and now we see the result.  Those that claimed this would not happen were wrong or liars.  I'm not surprised.  Are you?


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not in the history of western society.  Our shared society is of societies based on collections of families, and those families are made up of the so-called 'nuclear family.'  Mother, father, children.
> 
> Revisionist historical attempts aside, that is fact.  Inarguable.   It is what it is, you cannot redefine history.



well in that case your family dont count either cause yours is not nuclear, right? Lets all go by tradition. Your own marriage would just go right out the window.



Bill Mattocks said:


> The logic is inescapable, because marriage is not traditionally 'two people' but a 'man and a woman'.  Changing marriage to mean 'two people' is redefining it.  Once you've redefined something, you've opened the door to further revisions.



No b'y. What is it then, two feathers? 'Two people' is part of that traditionally defined definition. It doesnt not totally redefine it because it is still two people. Not three. Not four. Not me and my laptop. Or me and my cat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> well in that case your family dont count either cause yours is not nuclear, right? Lets all go by tradition. Your own marriage would just go right out the window.



My family does not meet the traditional definition of family.  However, my marriage does meet the traditional definition of marriage.  Society does not legally define what family is, but it does legally define what marriage is. Don't conflate the two.



> No b'y. What is it then, two feathers? 'Two people' is part of that traditionally defined definition. It doesnt not totally redefine it because it is still two people. Not three. Not four. Not me and my laptop. Or me and my cat.



Then I am a platypus.  That's because we're both mammals.  Marriage is only 'two people' if the two people are of opposite gender traditionally.  That's not hair-splitting, that's historic fact.  Pretending otherwise is playing silly buggers with words.

And the defense in the court case I cited will see that just as clearly.  If the state says that they defend marriage as being between only two people because there is a history of marriage as being between two people, the defense will simply counter that the tradition was for marriage to be a man and a woman, and now it's not, so tradition means exactly nothing.  Can't argue tradition when you tossed tradition out the window.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 6, 2011)

As I read through the entire thread I formed my own thoughts/ideas/opinions on it. 

To follow with Bill's original post/thread-subject. Will same sex marriage legalization lead to polygamous legalization? It all depends. 
It depends upon the present society and it'll depend upon the future society in which we will live in. Far as I know society still dictates what is law. 

The U.S. (a nation) is one society made up of 50 societies (states) made up of hundreds and or thousands of societies (cities and towns) which again is made up of millions of societies (neighborhoods), made up of hundreds of societies (families). Each decide what is right and wrong within their respective society. When there is a conflict then democracy takes over and says this is the majority that decides what this society will say what is right/wrong. 

Right now same sex is legal in several states. Right now polygamy is illegal in every state, and always has been since the U.S. began July 4th 1776 (heck even before then). Just a few decades ago same sex was illegal in every state. 
Will polygamy become legal in several states a few years from now? It all depends upon how society is viewing the issue of polygamy. Decades ago just being gay/lesbian was wrong in (majority) of society's eye. Now a majority of society doesn't argue with it. It's accepted and life goes on. 
If there are a few folks up in Canada who are crying for the legalization of polygamous marriages then it will be up to THAT society (Nation) to say yea or nay about it. Will it affect what goes on in THIS society? 

Time will tell.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My family does not meet the traditional definition of family.  However, my marriage does meet the traditional definition of marriage.  Society does not legally define what family is, but it does legally define what marriage is. Don't conflate the two.



well you were the one who spoke about traditional nuclear man woman and children. thats why i brought that up.

Its not totally changing the definition of marriage if its still two people. It would totally change it if it was me and my two best male friends - platypus.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Its not totally changing the definition of marriage if its still two people.



What is 'totally' changing the definition?  The definition has changed.  Now you can't claim tradition as a basis for not changing it further.  Whether it is 'totally' changed or not, it's changed.



> It would totally change it if it was me and my two best male friends - platypus.



The funny thing is you're still denying that the slippery slope exists, even while you argue it.  Changing the definition of marriage to be 'two people' isn't a major change, according to you, but more than two would be.  Slippery slope.

This is what the people against same-sex marriage said would happen, and it's happening.  Q.E.D.


----------



## kiai (Feb 6, 2011)

Hi Bill,

From what I understand, it seems as though the fundamental basis behind your argument against changes in marital liberty is that it could provoke *further* changes - the "slippery slope".

What distinguishes this situation as being a "slippery slope" from being "progress"?

It seems to me that where we disagree though, is the existence of a causal relationship between polygamy and each of the outcomes that you have described, or at least, the severity of each one.

1. Men will decide to use water torture rituals to raise their children because they have more than one wife?  I question this as being simply absurd - cannot identify any causal relationship!  Whoever would do this clearly has other problems, and their polygamy is certainly not the issue that needs addressing.

2. Neglected children - I agree that this will be causally increased in SOME cases.  But this is the fault of the person's character and morality, not their polygamy, and I suspect that anybody prepared to neglect their children due to polygamy is probably already doing so, monogamously.  Polygamy is not the issue that needs addressing here, but the person.

3. Increased competition against young males - possibly.  But I doubt this would be extremely severe in effect.  But this should force young males to increase their merit for attraction (skills, career, etc.) - anybody who is only able to attract a lady because all the other blokes are unavailable (as a result of monogamy) is a pretty sorry state, and should be encouraged to improve somehow.

4. Multiple underaged wives of older men: do you mean legally, as in, paedophilia?  What the heck is the link there?  If you mean underaged as in, comparatively young, then of course that's their choice to make.

It seems as though the argument is also fundamentally based upon the fallacy "argument ad antiquitam" - appeal to tradition/old ways, i.e. 'x is better because it's been like that for many years'.  If this argument made any sense, we wouldn't get anything done.

An interesting topic to consider, nonetheless.  To be honest, I don't even feel strongly about same-sex marriage/polygamy in particular, as I don't feel it affects me directly.  However, I do care about our rights and liberties as people, which encompasses this issue.  And as far as rights and liberties are concerned, despite them not directly applying to my life, I recognise the following:


> Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
> 
> - Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What is 'totally' changing the definition?  The definition has changed.  Now you can't claim tradition as a basis for not changing it further.  Whether it is 'totally' changed or not, it's changed.



but it hasnt changed totally. You're still keeping to the tradition of two people if two gays get married. 



			
				Bill M. said:
			
		

> The funny thing is you're still denying that the slippery slope exists, even while you argue it.  Changing the definition of marriage to be 'two people' isn't a major change, according to you, but more than two would be.  Slippery slope.
> 
> This is what the people against same-sex marriage said would happen, and it's happening.  Q.E.D.



Im not denying anything. People can claim a slippery slope for anything really. Doesnt change the fact its illogical to do so. There's no link that allowing same sex marriages will lead to or can lead to me marrying my pencil.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One of the arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage has been that it opens the floodgates to changing the definition of marriage to include all sorts of things, including polygamous marriage. This has routinely been pooh-poohed by proponents of same-sex marriage, who insist that same-sex marriage does not create a 'slippery slope' condition and won't lead to any such thing.
> 
> I think the facts are becoming clear. This is about Canada - *I don't think it will be long before similar court cases appear in the USA...*
> 
> ...


 
I agree with both the above, as a clear deterioration of what marriage stands for and of who was the author of it........


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

btw bill m like the taliban? I wouldnt say that. while both beliefs are against homosexual marriage, the taliban killed them, while Bill doesnt want to kill anyone because they are homosexual.


----------



## granfire (Feb 6, 2011)

> 4. Multiple *underaged* wives of older men: their choice, not yours, not mine.  Liberty.



well, THAT is a problem...underaged participants are that, under age and not able to legally concent...


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a 2,500 year tradition of marriage between a man and a woman.


 
2,500 years???
Whose tradition???

I can't really comment if Xtians banned polygamy at the start, but that would be, what, 1,500 years?

Muslims still have it.

It was banned for Ashkenaz Jews about 1,000 years ago, but never for Sephardi.


So there is not really a tradition. Secular laws maybe. But nowhere near 2,500 years.


----------



## kiai (Feb 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> well, THAT is a problem...underaged participants are that, under age and not able to legally concent...



I will have to correct that, assuming I can still edit it.  I assumed he meant underaged as in according to his opinion, rather than legally - I mean, surely, what the heck does polygamy have to do with pedophilia!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

kiai said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> From what I understand, it seems as though the fundamental basis behind your argument against changes in marital liberty is that it could provoke *further* changes - the "slippery slope".
> 
> What distinguishes this situation as being a "slippery slope" from being "progress"?



One can label it as they wish.  The fact remains that those who argued in favor of same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for other 'marriage' rights, such as polygamy.  Call that anything you like; opponents of same-sex marriage said it would happen, proponents said it would not.  It has happened.



> It seems to me that where we disagree though, is the existence of a causal relationship between polygamy and each of the outcomes that you have described, or at least, the severity of each one.



The government of Canada is actually making the arguments; I am reporting them.  They link the alleged activities of the group demanding polygamous marriage to their request because they (allegedly) perform them.  It would be unreasonable to make the case that all those who seek polygamous marriage would do these things.   It is not unreasonable to make the case that the ones who do these things - do these things.



> 1. Men will decide to use water torture rituals to raise their children because they have more than one wife?  I question this as being simply absurd - cannot identify any causal relationship!  Whoever would do this clearly has other problems, and their polygamy is certainly not the issue that needs addressing.



I believe the government of Canada is making the case that the group demanding the right to polygamous marriage as a sacrament of their religion also perform other sacraments of their religion and these are some of them.



> 2. Neglected children - I agree that this will be causally increased in SOME cases.  But this is the fault of the person's character and morality, not their polygamy, and I suspect that anybody prepared to neglect their children due to polygamy is probably already doing so, monogamously.  Polygamy is not the issue that needs addressing here, but the person.



Personally, I agree with you.  I doubt the government of Canada will get far with this argument, but they are making it.



> 3. Increased competition against young males - possibly.  But I doubt this would be extremely severe in effect.  But this should force young males to increase their merit for attraction (skills, career, etc.) - anybody who is only able to attract a lady because all the other blokes are unavailable (as a result of monogamy) is a pretty sorry state, and should be encouraged to improve somehow.



In the US, there are a couple of small alleged polygamous 'towns' that are offshoots of the LDS Church.  In my reading, it appears that they are run pretty much precisely as described in Canada; patriarchal dominance by a couple families; other males are not welcome and are indeed run off.  Bear in mind that they don't compete in an otherwise-open society; they compete in a very small closed and insular society which is utterly devoid of any other form of religion or marriage.  There is no open competition; one either is or is not of the family in power.



> 4. Multiple underaged wives of older men: their choice, not yours, not mine.  Liberty.



Then we cross another line, that being consent.  The argument is not only that the wives are underaged, but that they do not give their consent.  So we strike another of the traditional concepts of marriage off the list.



> It seems as though the argument is also fundamentally based upon the fallacy "argument ad antiquitam" - appeal to tradition/old ways, i.e. 'x is better because it's been like that for many years'.  If this argument made any sense, we wouldn't get anything done.



I can't speak for Canada, but in the USA, our law is based upon two things; the Constitution and Common Law.  Common Law is traditional law.  We always look to the past unless there is compelling reason not to - such as violation of constitutional rights.  So far, there has not been found a constitutional right to multiple marriage.



> An interesting topic to consider, nonetheless.  To be honest, I don't even feel strongly about same-sex marriage/polygamy in particular, as I don't feel it affects me directly.  However, I do care about our rights and liberties as people, which encompasses this issue.  And as far as rights and liberties are concerned, despite them not directly applying to my life, I recognise the following:



I don't see the denial of a group to do as they please and call it something that has a legal definition as denying them their rights.  If so, then once again I point out the slippery slope.  From same-sex to multiple marriage.  From multiple marriage to what, exactly?  When some suggested that there was no reason that children, closely related people, or even farm animals could not also claim infringement of their rights, it was laughed at.  But we made the jump from same-sex to multiple-marriage.  Now what?  Shall we again claim there will be no 'next' claim?  I contend that there will be a 'next'.  There is always a 'next'.  Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

kiai said:


> I will have to correct that, assuming I can still edit it.  I assumed he meant underaged as in according to his opinion, rather than legally - I mean, surely, what the heck does polygamy have to do with pedophilia!



Did you read the article?  It stated the ages of some of the brides.  Under the age of consent - without the consent of the parents.  But the marriages were arranged; the parents were the only ones giving consent.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

bill m said:
			
		

> One can label it as they wish.  The fact remains that those who argued  in favor of same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands  for other 'marriage' rights, such as polygamy.  Call that anything you  like; opponents of same-sex marriage said it would happen, proponents  said it would not.  It has happened.



Well ok, then, maybe they should have said there's a possibility someone will get silly - very silly - and make dumb statements like allowing same sex marriage would open the door to 3 people getting married and people marrying their dog. and for those people like mormons wanting their beliefs. They didnt admit some people would get silly. So what?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> but it hasnt changed totally. You're still keeping to the tradition of two people if two gays get married.



No, not at all.

Our society has traditionally and historically defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  They are 'two people' yes, but they are ALSO opposite gender.  Pretending otherwise is just that; pretending.



> Im not denying anything. People can claim a slippery slope for anything really. Doesnt change the fact its illogical to do so. There's no link that allowing same sex marriages will lead to or can lead to me marrying my pencil.


When you change the definition of marriage, you can't claim that it should not be changed based on traditional definitions.  Canada changed the definition; now they try to claim tradition as a reason to not change it further - read my previous quote or the article itself.  You can't claim authority by virtue of tradition when you tossed tradition out the window.

The slippery slope is self-evident; those who were against same-sex marriage said this would happen; it has happened.  How to deny that now?  The link is clear because it has happened.  Those who were in favor of same-sex marriage claimed it would not happen.  The results are the proof of which group was correct.  Slippery slope, just as claimed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Well ok, then, maybe they should have said there's a possibility someone will get silly - very silly - and make dumb statements like allowing same sex marriage would open the door to 3 people getting married and people marrying their dog. and for those people like mormons wanting their beliefs. They didnt admit some people would get silly. So what?



So what's next?  Where does it end?  Seems like we've made a mistake here.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 6, 2011)

Again, so what if they didnt admit some people would get stupid about it?


----------



## Kacey (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Our society is based upon the family.  Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children.  Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.
> 
> There is no other argument possible.  Our society is not based on polygamous marriages.  That's not speculation, that's fact.



The "western world" is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic - which has a long and Biblically documented history of polygamy.  Not recently, granted - but it's not anything new.



Bill Mattocks said:


> In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement.  I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage.  Yet it has.  They were wrong - at best.  At worst, they're liars.  The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me.  You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it.  The same-sex marriage proponents lied.



This is a logical fallacy that assumes that demands for legalizing polygamy would never occur without previous demands for same-sex marriage.  If something exists - and polygamy does, laws to the contrary notwithstanding - then at some point those who feel that their illegal activity should be legalized will try to change the law.  Other, similar legalizations may change the timing of that attempt - but eventually, the attempt will occur.



maunakumu said:


> I agree that this sect is practicing some destructive family dynamics, but it is fallacious to say these are tied to polygamy.  The existence of polygamous families who do not do these things proves this.  I can understand if a society wants to prohibit child marriages, "waterboarding" (now that's some inflammatory language LOL) infants, and other forms of violence.  However, I can see no reason to ban polygamy itself.  The same argument for gay marriages DOES apply here.  Grab your sled and hit the slopes for personal liberty!



I agree.   The practices that occur within these polygamous marriages are vile.  That does not mean that those vile practices and polygamy are inextricably linked, nor does it prove that polygamy causes these practices.  The same secrecy and fear of lawsuits over legal persecution that allow polygamous marriages to proliferate despite the law also leads to the proliferation of the practices of the members of this sect.  They are already hiding an illegal act - polygamy - in the name of religious freedom; further, vile illegal acts in the name of religion are hidden by the same fear of lawsuits.  As I said previously, if the laws about polygamy - along with those about underage marriage and abuse - were enforced, this issue would not occur.

Several people have mentioned keeping the government out of marriage and having it stick with legal contracts between those who wish to cohabit, and enforcing the legal responsibilities of parents for the health, safety, and upkeep for their children.  I see no problem with this - it would remove all arguments about religious persecution, and take away some of the stumbling blocks that are apparently preventing legal intervention in such cases.




Bill Mattocks said:


> What I want is for our society to keep our societal norms in this sense.  I recognize that some norms can infringe on civil liberties, and that when they do, society must change in a free society based on civil liberties.  The right to be treated equally is a civil right.  The right to be married to a person of the same sex is not.



You don't approve of same-sex marriages, and you don't approve of polygamy.  That's your choice.  Don't participate in such unions.  But why should those who prefer such unions be unable to have them legally recognized be unable to do so?  Because it offends your sense of what is right?



Bill Mattocks said:


> Did you read the article?  It stated the  ages of some of the brides.  Under the age of consent - without the  consent of the parents.  But the marriages were arranged; the parents  were the only ones giving consent.



Don't get me wrong - I am not interested in a same-sex or polygamous relationship - but neither am I going to interfere with either type of relationship between consenting adults who are causing injury to no one.  When abuse begins to occur, there are other laws that cover that.  But by making such relationships illegal, it makes those who are already in them even less likely than those in legally recognized situations to report it - and the reporting rates for spousal and child abuse are already disturbingly low.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> btw bill m like the taliban? I wouldnt say that. while both beliefs are against homosexual marriage, the taliban killed them, while Bill doesnt want to kill anyone because they are homosexual.



I think you missed my point.  The idea of legislating your religious preference is something that the Taleban does.  

Also, lets be honest here.  Lets say that I enter a polyamorous relationship with two women and we get married in our church.  We all are highly educated and productive citizens with no criminal record and we're the type of people everyone would love to have as neighbors.  He have children, we raise them with love and care and provide for their needs.  None of us ever hurt anyone around us and we take nothing that we didn't rightfully earn.

At any point in this relationship, men with guns could demand to take us into custody.  If we resist, we could be shot.  We will be brought in front of a court of law, convicted and sent to jail for an indeterminate amount of time where real criminals can victimize us.  Our children will be into a foster system that is sketchy at best where they clearly will not be given the kind of care we could have provided.  

This certainly isn't chopping anyone's head off, but there is an element of deadly force present that the State will use to break up this family...and the only reason is someone's religious preference.  It's more similar then you think.

So, now that I've pointed out the hidden gun in this room, I have to ask is this worth it?  Do we really want to live in a society that would break up a productive family unit simply because it doesn't conform to a particular religion's view of what families should look like?  

If you still think that we should, then I think the comparison with the Taleban is apt.  You aren't chopping any heads off, but damn you're not that far away from chopping heads off either.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what's next?  Where does it end?  Seems like we've made a mistake here.



The argument about where it ends, starts and ends with legal consent.  Can a dog give consent?  Can a child give consent?  In any contract, both people need to agree to it's terms.  It's really that simple, actually.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 6, 2011)

Hey! I got it!! ... 
Legalize Same Sex Polygamous Marriages!!


----------



## Carol (Feb 6, 2011)

> British Columbia has a 19th century law prohibiting polygamy, but in the  past turned a blind eye to what the group was doing, fearing that the  law might not be constitutional. Authorities changed their minds,  however, and charged two elders of Bountiful with polygamy. The case was  dismissed on technical grounds in 2009.



Then methinks BC needs to enforce, or fix, their anti-polygamy laws and leave same-sex marriage alone.

Here's another reason why I think it should be legal, this story on the passing of a U.S. Marine aviator who served two tours in Vietnam, and his surviving husband who sought to fulfill his final wishes. 



> They were always polite, but there was this moment  of hesitation, Ketterson recalled. They said theyre going to need  something in writing from a blood relative. They asked, Are you listed  on the death certificate? Do you have a *marriage license*? 
> 
> 
> He was and they did, the couple having been married in Des Moines when gay marriage became legal in Iowa two years ago.
> ...



http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/3526027-452/ketterson-academy-naval-usna-husband.html


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 7, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I think you missed my point.  The idea of legislating your religious preference is something that the Taleban does.



I see your point. i do. Legislating religious preferences was what the taliban and many other societies did. but it still makes me twitch at the idea of comparing the poor platypus  with killers like the taliban.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 7, 2011)

You could do what we do here. marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil partnership is for same sex couples. They can call themselves husband/wife or whatever but it's a civil partnership which makes it a legal partnership for things like insurance, wills, house buying etc, all the sort of stuff where legal recognition is needed of a partnership. Simples as Aleksandr Orlov would say.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 7, 2011)

This is an example of what happens when you get a steaming brown pile of religion all over my legal institutions.

Marriage has two parts: the legal status that applies to the people who got married, and the religious rituals/ethical guidelines those people put into the marriage.

In our society right now, they are inextricably linked by law. Because of this, there is significant risk to people whose romantic choices don't fall within our narrow definition of "marriage."

Far as I'm concerned, same sex and polygamous marriages should be fine as long as they aren't breaking other laws. The other acceptable option would be to alter insurance, medical, tax and inheritance law to reflect that two men - or a Heinleinian line marriage - might need to be intertwined under law as well as under the sheets. Changing the definition of marriage seems simpler.

The argument that opening our minds to same sex marriage might lead to opening our mind to other options has some merit.

The argument that just because some polygamists are criminal douchebags means that same sex marriage is inappropriate - that's just foolish. You're making two enormous leaps that simply aren't justified by the data.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You could do what we do here. marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil partnership is for same sex couples. They can call themselves husband/wife or whatever but it's a civil partnership which makes it a legal partnership for things like insurance, wills, house buying etc, all the sort of stuff where legal recognition is needed of a partnership. Simples as Aleksandr Orlov would say.


 
No, we can't.  The reason is because, in alot of states, such as California, such civil unions already exist legally.  However, the gay-rights groups want their unions to be called marriages.  It's not about "marriage".  It's about making homosexuality "normal".


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

Far be it from me to speak for Bill, but I think alot of you are missing some of his points.

First, I don't think Bill is saying that in polygamous relationships you have to have child or spousal abuse, torture, etc.  What Bill, I think, is saying is that for all of the groups that do actually condone and would like to see polygamous relationships legalized, these activities occur.  That is not to say that they _couldn't_  be separated, just that no where it exists is it _actually _separated.

And for those of you that support gay marriage, but not polygamous marriage I have a question for you.  What is your reason for not supporting polygamous marriages?  If the issue is about two people who love each other being able to get married, then why not three or four people getting married to each other?  If the issue isn't about love, then what is it about?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 7, 2011)

As an abstract, I see no resons not to allow them. Provided no other laws are broken.

Ptractically, it comes down to cost/benefit. The gay marriage argument hinges strongly on the legal and financial standing of a spouse. We have a crap load of law, statutes ad regulations that apply to married people. They are all based on the mariage being 2 people. 

Is there a sufficient number of polygamists out there to justify the massive legislative changes required? Its the same argument used for including same-sex in the definition of marriage. Doing so only involves changing the definition. Calling it something else involves changing every law referencing marriage.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, we can't.  The reason is because, in alot of states, such as California, such civil unions already exist legally.  However, the gay-rights groups want their unions to be called marriages.  It's not about "marriage". * It's about making homosexuality "normal"*.



What is not normal about it?

It's been around since the dawn of time, heck even _animals_ do have such tendencies...

It's just not 'normal' when the social context calls to 'be fruitful and multiply'


----------



## Steve (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a slippery slope, which was made clear by the careful wording I quoted from the court case; the argument made by the state was that marriage 'between two people' was a 2,500 year old institution.  It is not that at all, it's a 2,500 year old institution between a man and a woman.  That means that the argument that polygamous marriages go against tradition can no longer be used in Canada; by changing the definition of marriage, they tossed that out.
> 
> That's the slippery slope.  Man + woman = marriage is unfair to men + men and women + women.  So we (Canada) change i


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> The argument that opening our minds to same sex marriage might lead to opening our mind to other options has some merit.



That's pretty much my point in this thread.

Imagine a time-honored apple pie recipe.  No one disagrees that if you follow the recipe, you get an apple pie.

Now someone comes along and tweaks the recipe.  They use pumpkin instead of apples.  However, they insist that it still be called an apple pie.

The apple pie traditionalists object, complaining (among other things) that if you make apple pie with pumpkins instead of apples, it's not apple pie anymore; and that once you start redefining what apple pie is, you open it up to ongoing redefinition forever.  It's a Rubicon; once you cross it, it's crossed.  You can't unring that bell.

The fans of apple pie made with pumpkins pooh-pooh that notion, insisting that this one redefinition is all that will happen.  It would be crazy to let any further redefinition of apple pie take place, they solemnly swear.

So we end up with two kinds of apple pie.  Made with apples and made with pumpkins.

And finally, someone else comes along and wants to use grapes instead of apples or pumpkins.

The people who prefer the traditional recipe object, saying _"Apple pie is traditionally made with apples.  Making it with something else is not apple pie."_  And the people who want to make it with grapes respond, saying, _"You didn't stop it when apple pie was made with pumpkins.  So you can't use that argument now.  Too late.  I'm going to make it with grapes, call it apple pie, and you're just going to have to accept it."_

Once that redefinition takes place (as it has in Canada apparently), then the door is opened.  Those who said this would happen were right.  Those who said it would not happen now don't want to think about it; they want to change the subject or argue that polygamous marriage isn't such a bad idea after all.

And if someone suggests that this will lead to further redefinition of marriage yet again, they once again claim that no, it won't, that would be crazy talk.  Yet here we are; everything those of us who were against the redefinition of marriage said would happen has happened.

That's the nature of making exceptions.  Once you make the first one, you can no longer refuse to make exceptions on the basis that there are no exceptions.  Clearly there are, once the first exception has been made.  The argument then is only over which exceptions are OK and which are not OK, not whether the exception can be made at all.

_"No exceptions"_ is a strong argument against change until you make the first exception.  Then it's worth nothing.  Some of us said this; we were laughed at.  We were right.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 7, 2011)

who gives a eff again if someone didnt admit some people were gonna act stupid.

and your apple pie thingy doesnt make any sense. if you add pumpkin your changing the pie completely there is not apple pie. if you add same sex marriages its still two people. It doesnt fly.

and there lots of reasons I dont believe in polygamous marriages. One, they're sexist.  Two, i can see cat fights down the road between people who may get jealous they have to share their husband with other wives.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> who gives a eff again if someone didnt admit some people were gonna act stupid.



It goes to the base argument.  If a group says _"I don't think that will happen if we do X,"_ and it does happen, I'm not going to be listening to them anymore.  They're either incorrect or lying.



> and your apple pie thingy doesnt make any sense. if you add pumpkin your changing the pie completely there is not apple pie. if you add same sex marriages its still two people. It doesnt fly.



If you change apples to pumpkins, it's still fruit (I think.  Is pumpkin a fruit?)  Well anyway, the point here is that YOU define marriage as being between two people, but that is NOT the traditional definition, as you well know.  The traditional definition is two people of opposite genders.  At no time in our history has it meant two people of the same sex.  So saying it hasn't changed because it is still _'two people'_ is choosing not to take note of actual facts.



> and there lots of reasons I dont believe in polygamous marriages. One, they're sexist.  Two, i can see cat fights down the road between people who may get jealous they have to share their husband with other wives.



Sure, but now they have *just as valid* an argument in favor of legalization of their multiple marriages as same-sex couples do - the right to be happy and to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage brings.  Before, Canada could say no, because it invalidated the traditional definition of marriage.  Now they can't say that anymore.

Opening the door for one meant that argument can no longer be used for any.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2011)

Sometimes I feel like this slippery slope has run the wrong way down hill.  With polygamy, we have children, we have families, we have men and women living together, and we have plenty of religious precedent (if you care about those things).  In many ways same sex marriage is a leap farther then polygamy.  It's really strange to see same sex marriages almost accepted and polygamy as such a deep taboo when you think about it.  Is it because homosexuals are more vocal about their rights?  Or is there a deeper aspect of polygamy that I am missing that puts it in a category that is more "deviant" then same sex marriage?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Sometimes I feel like this slippery slope has run the wrong way down hill.  With polygamy, we have children, we have families, we have men and women living together, and we have plenty of religious precedent (if you care about those things).  In many ways same sex marriage is a leap farther then polygamy.  It's really strange to see same sex marriages almost accepted and polygamy as such a deep taboo when you think about it.  Is it because homosexuals are more vocal about their rights?  Or is there a deeper aspect of polygamy that I am missing that puts it in a category that is more "deviant" then same sex marriage?



There are many aspects, including religious, cultural, and historic.  Then you have to look at the many flavors of polyamory, including polygamous (more properly called polygynous, since it refers to one male with multiple female spouses) and situations that involve multiple partners of both sexes.  There are also looser affiliations of 'family' that involve polyamory but not complete sharing of finances and other traditional aspects of 'family' and groups that allow open entry and exit from a larger 'group' as if the family were a corporation, gaining and losing employees; even larger situations that might not involve sexuality at all, but more of a group-wise construct resembling a religious cult - even some which resemble that but are not religious, such as utopian compounds, kibutzes, and extended definitions of what family is.

All of these happen; all of them are supported in one way or another by law in the USA.  No one stops six guys and four girls from living together in the same house and doing whatever comes to mind when the lights go out.  It's the institution of marriage, which confers some legal benefits, which is being put to the test, not their right to cohabitate in whatever way their minds can come up with.

And by the way, if you really want to have your mind blown, read some of the last science fiction novels by Robert Heinlein.  He really challenges many notions, including whether or not the taboo of siblings and parents marrying each other should still exist.  And again, once you open the door to redefining what marriage is, someone is going to say _"Hey, those other guys got what they wanted, WHY NOT ME?"_  And there just isn't much we can say in response.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All of these happen; all of them are supported in one way or another by law in the USA.  No one stops six guys and four girls from living together in the same house and doing whatever comes to mind when the lights go out.  It's the institution of marriage, which confers some legal benefits, which is being put to the test, not their right to cohabitate in whatever way their minds can come up with.



And herein lies the problem. A married couple enjoys rights under the law - rights that are denied to people who bat for other teams (some of which might have more than the traditional number of players). 

Our tradition of liberty in the US is pretty clear that you should not have rights suspended unless you're actively hurting somebody. The situation, as it currently stands, does exactly that.

I'd be perfectly happy to see the definition of marriage expanded. I'd be even happier to see a "domestic alliance" provision in the law - and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions that want to see it narrowly defined.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> And herein lies the problem. A married couple enjoys rights under the law - rights that are denied to people who bat for other teams (some of which might have more than the traditional number of players).
> 
> Our tradition of liberty in the US is pretty clear that you should not have rights suspended unless you're actively hurting somebody. The situation, as it currently stands, does exactly that.
> 
> I'd be perfectly happy to see the definition of marriage expanded. I'd be even happier to see a "domestic alliance" provision in the law - and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions that want to see it narrowly defined.



I agree that there is a difference between the rights of those who are married to each other versus those who are joined in some other way, from casual relationships to recognized civil unions.

We can fix that which does not involved redefining what marriage is.

One way would be for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business for everyone.  Let churches define what marriage is and is not; if a person wants to argue it, it's between them and their church, not between them and the government.  For those who are not religious, fine, let them simply declare themselves married and that's that.  Most states that have common-law marriages allow that now anyway; any man and woman that hold themselves out as husband and wife are.

Another way would be to grant civil unions the same rights and benefits as married couples enjoy.  End of problem.

I fail to see why the institution of marriage must be destroyed in order that no one be denied their rights.  They can and should have their rights respected; the same rights as married couples enjoy.  There is no need to destroy marriage as an institution to do that.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that there is a difference between the rights of those who are married to each other versus those who are joined in some other way, from casual relationships to recognized civil unions.
> 
> We can fix that which does not involved redefining what marriage is.
> 
> ...


 

With a 52% divorce rate, I'd say "The institution of marriage"(_Why is marriage an *institution?* Because you have to be *committed!* _ :lfao: ) is pretty well broken, if not destroyed.

I've posted this before, but* all* government sponsored marriages are "_civil unions_": the public commingling of property rights, inheritance, child custody, personal responsibilities and liabilities. The government will never be out of this business, as it affects tax revenue in many ways. 

Simply make all govenment marriages "civil unions." Allow an option for polygamy. 

The government will hardly ever (hate to say "never") get involved in the business of religious marriage......at least, no more than it does now: for example, I have a state issued seal to certify marriage licenses at the conclusion of a wedding.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that there is a difference between the rights of those who are married to each other versus those who are joined in some other way, from casual relationships to recognized civil unions.
> 
> We can fix that which does not involved redefining what marriage is.
> 
> ...


 
The problem with that is, the proponents of gay marriage don't want anyone to argue about it.  None of this is about allowing them to be married, it's about compelling everyone else to recognize them.  That's why a civil union is insufficient.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

Somehow your otherwise keen skills are misted over on this subject. 

There are many things I see flowing into your argument and some of them getting jumbled up.

We are talking legal contract here. Signed sealed and delivered, not commune. So the Kibutz is somewhat out, or the Hippy commune...

We are left with tradition:
If we go back 2500 years we find a lot of different traditions: The Middle eastern one, having the wife subordinate to the husband (AKA chattel) and also to a certain extent polygamy (with several women) were as the Germanic/Keltic background is more emancipated (dog gonnit, the romans screwed that up for us). That is just the pale faced western tradition. Let's not forget that homosexuality was almost celebrated by the Helenistic culture and subsequently by the Romans as well. And those are the hailed cultural roots of the west.

Not much really changes until the Middle of the last century, minus the same sex aspect becoming demonized. 

So when we are talking tradition, which do we pick?

With the bigger families, the tribes breaking apart in the last 200-300 years or so (actually probably more around 1000, rough estimate) the core family becomes the _economic _necessety. Let;s not forget there is a long tradition of the couple having to proof they have the financial means to start a family before they can engage into the contract of marriage. (Prussian soldiers or their brides had to proof they had in excess of 30.000 marks to get permission to marry, pretty much up until the end of WWI)

So, we are left with the economic unit. It used to take a woman and a man to have a child and for them to stay together to raise it. Not to mention the parents needed the children to care for them when old age made it impossible for them to earn their way.

But these things have changed.

We don't need to be married and have children to support our old age
We don't stay together til death doth us part
We don't have children at all many times.

So all those core elements of the traditional marriage are gone.

We are left with the rest of the bag. insurance possessions and the right to make the decisions on behalf of the other. It's legalese. 

Considering it does not affect me if John Smith is marrying Jane Doe, it also is of no consequence to me if Adam and Steve get hitched. 

A lot of the problems they law faces with the pervert polygamists would be rooted out if some things would be changed and enforced: The age of legal conscent (and in many states the age at which a person can be married of with parental conscent. In some states it's a shocking 14! )

And there: I don't see a single reason why same sex marriage is a slippery slope for anything. 
I don't see homosexuals particularly unqualified to raise children, heaven knows, having a pair of matching reproduction organs is no guarantee...(that was another 'slippery slope' argument)

Let's see, what else is there....


----------



## elder999 (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> Let's see, what else is there....


 

A man who obtains a sex change legally have his birth certificate changed to reflect* "her"* new "_gender_."

And_ legally_ marry a man.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

elder999 said:


> With a 52% divorce rate, I'd say "The institution of marriage"(_Why is marriage an *institution?* Because you have to be *committed!* _ :lfao: ) is pretty well broken, if not destroyed.



I can't disagree with that.  But I can disagree that a broken institution is best addressed by smashing it up some more.  One only has to look at the blighted neighborhoods in Detroit to see that setting abandoned and decaying buildings on fire doesn't improve the neighborhood.



> I've posted this before, but* all* government sponsored marriages are "_civil unions_": the public commingling of property rights, inheritance, child custody, personal responsibilities and liabilities. The government will never be out of this business, as it affects tax revenue in many ways.



All they have to do is drop the moniker 'marriage' and go with 'civil union'.  For everybody.  Then they get to continue as before.



> Simply make all govenment marriages "civil unions." Allow an option for polygamy.
> 
> The government will hardly ever (hate to say "never") get involved in the business of religious marriage......at least, no more than it does now: for example, I have a state issued seal to certify marriage licenses at the conclusion of a wedding.



And interestingly, most states don't require clergy who perform marriages to be licensed in any way.  If you say you're a preacher, you are.  If you say you're legal to marry two people, you are.  But if you say you're married, the state has to recognize it.  Eh?  I think we're in agreement here, get the government out of the marriage business.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> The problem with that is, the proponents of gay marriage don't want anyone to argue about it.  None of this is about allowing them to be married, it's about compelling everyone else to recognize them.  That's why a civil union is insufficient.



I have trouble disagreeing with you on this.  It does seem to me that *some* (and certainly not all) gay people not only want the rights and benefits that heterosexual married people have, but they want to 'be accepted' by everyone.  Meaning that they're not happy if *I* don't approve of their union.  That's going to be a hard thing to legislate; freedom being what it is, I don't have to approve, I only have to accept the law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> Somehow your otherwise keen skills are misted over on this subject.
> 
> There are many things I see flowing into your argument and some of them getting jumbled up.
> 
> We are talking legal contract here. Signed sealed and delivered, not commune. So the Kibutz is somewhat out, or the Hippy commune...



I was responding to a different question. I'm sure you're aware of that.  So please.



> We are left with tradition:
> If we go back 2500 years we find a lot of different traditions: The Middle eastern one, having the wife subordinate to the husband (AKA chattel) and also to a certain extent polygamy (with several women) were as the Germanic/Keltic background is more emancipated (dog gonnit, the romans screwed that up for us). That is just the pale faced western tradition. Let's not forget that homosexuality was almost celebrated by the Helenistic culture and subsequently by the Romans as well. And those are the hailed cultural roots of the west.



We have only one marriage tradition in the West at the present time.  End of argument.



> Not much really changes until the Middle of the last century, minus the same sex aspect becoming demonized.
> 
> So when we are talking tradition, which do we pick?



The one we have.



> With the bigger families, the tribes breaking apart in the last 200-300 years or so (actually probably more around 1000, rough estimate) the core family becomes the _economic _necessety. Let;s not forget there is a long tradition of the couple having to proof they have the financial means to start a family before they can engage into the contract of marriage. (Prussian soldiers or their brides had to proof they had in excess of 30.000 marks to get permission to marry, pretty much up until the end of WWI)
> 
> So, we are left with the economic unit. It used to take a woman and a man to have a child and for them to stay together to raise it. Not to mention the parents needed the children to care for them when old age made it impossible for them to earn their way.
> 
> ...



All you're doing is arguing that marriage doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean.  But marriage has a distinct cultural, society, and historical meaning in OUR SOCIETY.  The one that you and I both live in now, today, right here and now.

This is not theory, this is fact.

I'm sorry you don't like it.  Redefining marriage as something it is not is exactly what I said it was - opening the door so that marriage can be whatever you wish it to be.

So when a man wants to marry his daughter, or all his daughters, and his dog too, please please please don't complain; and don't call me ridiculous for suggesting it might happen.  You yourself have decided to define marriage to fit whatever definition YOU choose; he'll do the same.  And the argument will be just as reasonable.

Marriage has one cultural, social, and historical definition in our society.  Just one.  It's not the one you like - sorry, but too bad.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 7, 2011)

What a coinkydink, I found this old Newsweek article: I Don't, citing the traditional reasons for marriage from a female perspective and why those reasons no longer apply. Tellingly, they offer no reason why a man should get married at all, other than this one very relevant statement:



> As one 28-year-old man told the author of a new book on marriage: &#8220;If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.&#8221;


 
Bottom line, we don't need each other anymore. Or rather, the few things we do need from each other have been "liberated" from the bonds of matrimony. The institution is defunct, and that to me suggests that the increasingly vehement push for same-sex marriage has less to do with offering gays the equal right to make each other miserable than it does with using the legal framework to compel others to accept them.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I . That's going to be a hard thing to legislate; freedom being what it is, I don't have to approve, I only have to accept the law.


 
And, in fact, there are quite a few people that don't accept *my* ("interracial") marriage, and I'd defend their *right* not to..........
.......but it's *not* the law.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was responding to a different question. I'm sure you're aware of that.  So please.


While I was typing the conversation went merrily along. The post I responded to is much further up




> We have only one marriage tradition in the West at the present time.  End of argument.
> 
> 
> 
> The one we have.



Ah, but the tradition you refer to is very young. Like I said, we have had many changes. All pretty much for the better.





> All you're doing is arguing that marriage doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean.  But marriage has a distinct cultural, society, and historical meaning in OUR SOCIETY.  The one that you and I both live in now, today, right here and now.


The meaning of marriage. Like I said, you are usually sharp as a tack, but for some reason you can't make this argument stick. The tradition of marriage in the context of our society is money.

You pay the family of the bride money to compensate for the loss of her labor, the bride brings with her a substantial amount of goods, and up until the last century, about middle ways she lost pretty much all her rights with the 'I do' 

Marriage is about money. Nothing sacred about it. Strip it all down to the essentials.

The notion that you had to 'love' your spouse is new. The tradition in many areas - and yes, _our western traditions_ - dictate that money belongs to money. That the girls are encouraged to 'reach for the good cloth' when allowing a suitor to court them. 
Tradition also suggested that women did not have a job outside the home, depending on their husbands. Also a very recent victim of changes. naturally divorce rates were not high when leaving your husband meant economic disaster! 



> This is not theory, this is fact.


I know you mean it different, but you are right.



> I'm sorry you don't like it.  Redefining marriage as something it is not is exactly what I said it was - opening the door so that marriage can be whatever you wish it to be.


I am trying to nail you down on what traditions you want to adhere to 



> So when a man wants to marry his daughter, or all his daughters, and his dog too, please please please don't complain; and don't call me ridiculous for suggesting it might happen.  You yourself have decided to define marriage to fit whatever definition YOU choose; he'll do the same.  And the argument will be just as reasonable.


Those are loser arguments, brought forth by those who know they have no real reason to deny a different view of the existing. 
Incest has always been a big taboo. It seems that even cavemen noticed it was a bad thing for the tribe. Having the scientific backup as to why it is bad, I don't think it even figures into the equation! Same as the dog and the ficus: They cannot give consent! I think that is the premise we are operating under: two (or maybe more) adults who can legally consent to enter into a legally binding contract. 





> Marriage has one cultural, social, and historical definition in our society.  Just one.  It's not the one you like - sorry, but too bad.



Like? Like has nothing to do with it. But you usually are good at stripping away the BS and seeing things for what they are. definitions change. 
Like the definition of wife has changed over the centuries and decades. 

The last couple of centuries have put a sugar gloss layer upon the institution of marriage.

Romance had little to do with the carnal needs of the body and the economical needs to raise the fruits of the loins.


----------



## Steve (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a slippery slope, which was made clear by the careful wording I quoted from the court case; the argument made by the state was that marriage 'between two people' was a 2,500 year old institution.  It is not that at all, it's a 2,500 year old institution between a man and a woman.  That means that the argument that polygamous marriages go against tradition can no longer be used in Canada; by changing the definition of marriage, they tossed that out.
> 
> That's the slippery slope.  Man + woman = marriage is unfair to men + men and women + women.  So we (Canada) change it.  Now that we've changed it, the number is hardly relevant.  Two, three, four, what differences does it make?  You can't argue that marriage is traditionally only between two -  because it is also traditionally between a man and a woman, and that was conveniently tossed out - so you can toss out the maximum number as well.
> 
> ...


Wow.  My response got eaten.  

What I was trying to say this morning is that polygamy doesn't follow same-sex marriage in legal way.  Arguments may be made to legalize polygamy, but the underlying foundation (at least in America) of discrimination is strictly tied to gender as a protected class.

In other words, you identify the following as "traditional" marital traits:

_Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings_

Until 1967, that list would have read as follows:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings _*of the same race*_

Race, however, is a protected class just as gender is a protected class.  Telling a man he can't get a marriage license to marry another man is discrimination based on gender, just as denying a marriage license to a black man and a white woman is discrimination based on race.  If the black man were white, or if the man were a woman, the license would be issued without question.  

If (or when) sexual orientation is included as a protected category nationally, the issue will become even more cut and dry.  

Polygamy isn't similarly protected.

Also, just so that I'm on record, I am speaking strictly about civil/public recognition of marriage.  As far as I'm concerned, a person can have as many boyfriends and/or girlfriends as he or she wants at the same time, and call them anything from "husband" or "wife" to "old man" or some word they made up at Burning Man.  For legal purposes, however, we have to have some ground rules.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> In other words, you identify the following as "traditional" marital traits:
> 
> _Man + woman.
> Two people.
> ...



It would have read that in some states; not all.



> Race, however, is a protected class just as gender is a protected class.  Telling a man he can't get a marriage license to marry another man is discrimination based on gender, just as denying a marriage license to a black man and a white woman is discrimination based on race.  If the black man were white, or if the man were a woman, the license would be issued without question.



That has not been shown to be the case.  Marriage is a human right.  'Miscegenation' laws infringed upon the rights of men and women to marry each other, and thus it was rightfully struck down.  The attempt by some states to append a new meaning to marriage to restrict it based on race was found to infringe on the human right to marry.

Now, if you wish to argue that the definition of marriage is changeable because it once meant _'within the same race'_ in some states, then there is no reason it cannot be changed to mean _'within the same gender'_ but of course it can also be changed to mean _'two or more people' instead of 'two people'_.

Civil rights must be respected, and I agree with that.  I see no reason that any conglomeration of people who wish to be seen as a united, er, couple, can't be extended the same rights as those who are married in the more traditional sense.  But it's not marriage and should not be called that.  Marriage is as I have described it; any attempt to redefine it is just that, redefinition.  I didn't make up the definition of marriage; it is what it is.



> If (or when) sexual orientation is included as a protected category nationally, the issue will become even more cut and dry.
> 
> Polygamy isn't similarly protected.
> 
> Also, just so that I'm on record, I am speaking strictly about civil/public recognition of marriage.  As far as I'm concerned, a person can have as many boyfriends and/or girlfriends as he or she wants at the same time, and call them anything from "husband" or "wife" to "old man" or some word they made up at Burning Man.  For legal purposes, however, we have to have some ground rules.



There is no reason that the exact same argument used to redefine marriage to mean two people and not two people of the opposite gender cannot be further modified to mean more than two people of whatever gender.  Once you break with tradition, you can't claim tradition as a reason not to change it anymore.

Miscegenation laws were never part of the traditional definition of marriage; they were part of a racist institution that was intended to deny the legal rights of marriage to men and women of a different skin color.  Marriage, however, was before and has been since, the same; between a man and a woman.  That is the traditional definition in our society.


----------



## Steve (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It would have read that in some states; not all.


Just as same sex marriages are banned in some states; not all.  The parallels are undeniable.  The point isn't what States ADD to the "traditional" definition of marriage.  It's whether what they have is illegal based upon the civil rights act and our nationally defined protected categories.

Once again, race is a protected category.  The argument was essentially that it wasn't discrimination because it applied to all races.  White people can't marry black people, and black people couldn't marry white people, either.  Equal.  Right?

Wrong.  It was discriminatory and in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and appropriately, States were mandated to issue marriage licenses and end any prohibitions against interracial marriage.

In the same way, we are now seeing discriminatory legislation based upon gender that argues this exact same position.  





> Now, if you wish to argue that the definition of marriage is changeable because it once meant _'within the same race'_ in some states, then there is no reason it cannot be changed to mean _'within the same gender'_ but of course it can also be changed to mean _'two or more people' instead of 'two people'_.


I do not.  I am arguing that the definition of marriage is changeable if it is illegal and discriminatory, as it was in the 60's.  


> Civil rights must be respected, and I agree with that.  I see no reason that any conglomeration of people who wish to be seen as a united, er, couple, can't be extended the same rights as those who are married in the more traditional sense.  But it's not marriage and should not be called that.  Marriage is as I have described it; any attempt to redefine it is just that, redefinition.  I didn't make up the definition of marriage; it is what it is.


Personally, I don't care what it's called.  But officially, I don't agree with this because we have a precedent.  We're not redefining marriage.  We're excising the portion that is illegal.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 7, 2011)

elder999 said:


> A man who obtains a sex change legally have his birth certificate changed to reflect* "her"* new "_gender_."
> 
> And_ legally_ marry a man.


 

And, I have to point out again, we already have legal same-sex marriage in all 50 states....technically speaking.

Seems we've already changed the definition of "man" and "woman." Can't really stop at "marriage."

Society changes. Definitions change with it......no one has to like it......it just has to be the *law.*


----------



## Kacey (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And by the way, if you really want to have your mind blown, read some of the last science fiction novels by Robert Heinlein.  He really challenges many notions, including whether or not the taboo of siblings and parents marrying each other should still exist.  And again, once you open the door to redefining what marriage is, someone is going to say _"Hey, those other guys got what they wanted, WHY NOT ME?"_  And there just isn't much we can say in response.



I'll say it again:  "Several people have mentioned keeping the government out of marriage and  having it stick with legal contracts between those who wish to cohabit,  and enforcing the legal responsibilities of parents for the health,  safety, and upkeep for their children.  I see no problem with this - it  would remove all arguments about religious persecution, and take away  some of the stumbling blocks that are apparently preventing legal  intervention in such cases."

I said this for a reason - I believe it.  How does it hurt you if consenting adults are in a same-sex marriage, a polygamous union - any type of union other than 1 man and 1 woman?  If you don't agree with it, don't do it - but I fail to understand how it causes you any harm to allow others to do it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2011)

Steve, read the ruling; it isn't on the basis you argue it is; my statements are correct. Forgive the brevity, I'm on my iPod. Loving bs. Virginia, key paragraph is: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 7, 2011)

We must respect that precious Judeo-Xtian tradition. 2,500+ years old. Back to King Solomon. Wisest of wise Kings. Solid traditionalist. 300 wives and 700 concubines...:lfao:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> What is not normal about it?
> 
> It's been around since the dawn of time, heck even _animals_ do have such tendencies...
> 
> It's just not 'normal' when the social context calls to 'be fruitful and multiply'


 
That's why I placed normal in quotations.  It was to emphasize the point that we are talking about culturally normal, not a matter of it being normal in nature.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 7, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> We must respect that precious Judeo-Xtian tradition. 2,500+ years old. Back to King Solomon. Wisest of wise Kings. Solid traditionalist. 300 wives and 700 concubines...:lfao:


 
It's good to be the king!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

This is a very interesting argument.  Not the issue itself exactly, but the form the argument is taking.

Quite frankly, Bill is correct in his argument.  What you have to remember is that he is not always talking about the legality.  His main point for posting was to discuss the actual argumentation, not the merits or demerits of gay marriage, homosexual marriage, nor any other kind of marriage.  Simply that the case that the argument for allowing gay marriage can't be used to justify polygomous marriages has been proven to be false.  

When asked, he gives his bias.  His bias is that marriage remain between one man and one woman.  He justifies it based on his own perspective.  What I think is important, however, is that he doesn't absolutely condemn a legal rendering of the definition of marriage to mean homosexual unions as well, and as a matter of law he understands that it's not all about his will.  In fact, he has more then once reiterated that people should be able to be with whomever they choose.

Once again, though, I have to ask why polygomous marriages are taboo if one agrees to change the definition of marriage?  One example used was sexism, however there is nothing that says that the marriage would have to be between only one man and multiple women.  One can throw one woman and mulitple men, or multiple men and women in a single marriage.

Is it a money thing, for instance tax laws.  Well, have you seen our tax laws as they currently stand?  There are so many convoluted laws that if you took the same information to multiple accountants, you would get as many different returns as the number of accountants that you went to.

If it is about inheritence, then that is what wills are for.  And if the will isn't satisfactory after death, that is what courts are for.

So, again, I am not seeing why an argument for polygamous marriage is "silly" if we are allowed to change the definition.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 7, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Quite frankly, Bill is correct in his argument.  What you have to remember is that he is not always talking about the legality.  His main point for posting was to discuss the actual argumentation, not the merits or demerits of gay marriage, homosexual marriage, nor any other kind of marriage.  Simply that the case that the argument for allowing gay marriage can't be used to justify polygomous marriages has been proven to be false.



I disagree.  There is no way to prove that the issue of polygamous marriage wouldn't have come up at some point anyway.  I accept his premise that the acceptance of same-sex marriage affected the timing - but I disagree that there is a provable, causative relationship between the two.  Given the difficulty of proving a negative - that is, that the issue of polygamous marriage would *never* have come up without the issue of same-sex marriage coming up first - I see no way to resolve this issue.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It goes to the base argument.  If a group says _"I don't think that will happen if we do X,"_ and it does happen, I'm not going to be listening to them anymore.  They're either incorrect or lying.



Doesnt bother me. Could it be that it bothers you cause your against same sex marriage anyway and people who are against this would naturally complain 'oh they never said this' cause they want everyone to live by what their traditional definition of marriage is, despite the fact not everyone wants to live like that. and i dont think they should have to if they dont want to.

I just don't see whats so important about 'they cant say that now  anymore' as you said, Bill.  I just dont see the big deal.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

Kacey said:


> I disagree. There is no way to prove that the issue of polygamous marriage wouldn't have come up at some point anyway. I accept his premise that the acceptance of same-sex marriage affected the timing - but I disagree that there is a provable, causative relationship between the two. Given the difficulty of proving a negative - that is, that the issue of polygamous marriage would *never* have come up without the issue of same-sex marriage coming up first - I see no way to resolve this issue.


 
That's just it, he never said that.

What he said was that the argument used by "A", is now being used by "B", even though "A" said that it would never happen.  He's not making a causality argument, nor is he speaking of acceptance or non-acceptance of either one. He is simply making a (recent) historical fact.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Doesnt bother me. Could it be that it bothers you cause your against same sex marriage anyway and people who are against this would naturally complain 'oh they never said this' cause they want everyone to live by what their traditional definition of marriage is, despite the fact not everyone wants to live like that. and i dont think they should have to if they dont want to.
> 
> I just don't see whats so important about 'they cant say that now anymore' as you said, Bill. I just dont see the big deal.


 
The big deal is that now you can continue to define marriage to mean whatever you want, such as brother and sister, biological mom and son, biological father and daughter, or underage person with adult.  The question is, what is to stop such a marriage now that you've condoned the changing of the definition of what it means to be married.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The big deal is that now you can continue to define marriage to mean whatever you want, such as brother and sister, biological mom and son, biological father and daughter, or underage person with adult.  The question is, what is to stop such a marriage now that you've condoned the changing of the definition of what it means to be married.




Cop out argument.

There are reasons for not allowing close relatives to be married.

I give you the underage one, since in the not so recent past 14 was considered a good age for a girl to be married. But then again this is were your argument bites itself in the tail and chases it: We do no longer consider 14 year olds or even 16 to be of age to consent. Part of the changing definitions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> We must respect that precious Judeo-Xtian tradition. 2,500+ years old. Back to King Solomon. Wisest of wise Kings. Solid traditionalist. 300 wives and 700 concubines...:lfao:



No wonder the Bible is full of genocide.  All those ******* would drive me crazy too!


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 8, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The big deal is that now you can continue to define marriage to mean whatever you want, such as brother and sister, biological mom and son, biological father and daughter, or underage person with adult.  The question is, what is to stop such a marriage now that you've condoned the changing of the definition of what it means to be married.





granfire said:


> Cop out argument.
> 
> There are reasons for not allowing close relatives to be married.



and there are reasons to not allow a polygamy marriage too.

and yeah, I suppose a society can, in theory define marriage to mean I can marry my pencil. or my 38 year old brother. Or I can marry my brother and my cousin at the same time.  Whether its just stupid ideas that anti same sex marriage people come up with though is another litter of kittens.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> We do no longer consider 14 year olds or even 16 to be of age to consent. Part of the changing definitions.



Interestingly, some states do still allow 14 year olds to marry, although generally with parental permission.  Of course, that's what's "on the books", who knows if the state would actually let it happen.  One small example about how this carved in stone tradition is anything but, even in this country.

Also, the outrage seems to be misplaced.  One plaintiff has brought a lawsuit, using the fact of gay marriage to support their argument.  Nothing prevents or causes them to do so, a lawsuit may be filed for any reason using any argumentation.  The plaintiff could have argued for polygamy because the aliens of Omicron Persei 6 allow it, and all the judge could do is dismiss the case, not demand the argument be changed.  Given that, it seems a little irrational to start talking about liars and agendas.  At least wait to see if the lawsuit is decided on using the gay marriage argument as grounds, then maybe you would have a point.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Interestingly, some states do still allow 14 year olds to marry, although generally with parental permission.  Of course, that's what's "on the books", who knows if the state would actually let it happen.  One small example about how this carved in stone tradition is anything but, even in this country.




I actually believe the great state of Alabama is one of the few who allows _girls_ as young as 14 to be married off with parental consents. If I recall right I worked with a woman once, she claimed she had been raped as a 14 yo, (by a 45 yo, upstanding citizen of the community, church and all that) and then married to him since she got pregnant.

Then again, she was a delightful airhead...who knows how much truth was to that....

On the otherhand, everybody is ready, willing and able to throw the 19 yo under the jail for having relations with his 17 yo GF, just because they are not married...


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> and there are reasons to not allow a polygamy marriage too.
> 
> and yeah, I suppose a society can, in theory define marriage to mean I can marry my pencil. or my 38 year old brother. Or I can marry my brother and my cousin at the same time.  Whether its just stupid ideas that anti same sex marriage people come up with though is another litter of kittens.



Silly! Unless you got a talking pencil....

Well you actually can marry your cousin. But you can't marry your brother or father...you know it seems they figured out really early on that those relationships cause numerous problems of the genetic kind in the offspring. _That's_ why you don't do it.
And even the gene pool among cousins gets a bit on the stale side when concentrated. You can find the population of the Amish as prime example for that, the Mennonites to a lesser degree. Lot's of mental problems and physical anormalities.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Silly! Unless you got a talking pencil....
> 
> Well you actually can marry your cousin. But you can't marry your brother or father...you know it seems they figured out really early on that those relationships cause numerous problems of the genetic kind in the offspring. _That's_ why you don't do it.
> And even the gene pool among cousins gets a bit on the stale side when concentrated. You can find the population of the Amish as prime example for that, the Mennonites to a lesser degree. Lot's of mental problems and physical anormalities.


 
Actually, genetically speaking, there generally isn't too much danger from fathers breeding with daughters, or sisters mating with brothers. The odds are a little higher with mothers and  sons, and in cases where certain negative traits are already present. Of course, when mother and father are _already_ cousins, as was more common when the human population was lower, the danger to the offspring from father and daughter, or sister and brother is increased.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Actually, genetically speaking, there generally isn't too much danger from fathers breeding with daughters, or sisters mating with brothers. The odds are a little higher with mothers and  sons, and in cases where certain negative traits are already present. Of course, when mother and father are _already_ cousins, as was more common when the human population was lower, the danger to the offspring from father and daughter, or sister and brother is increased.




Interesting interjection. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352805,00.html

I suppose the exception to the rule: The man was caught when he brought his 'Grandchild' to the doctor with a condition related to inbreeding/incest...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2011)

Marriage between cousins are becoming a problem in some communities here, especially when the parents and grandparents have married their cousins too.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

IIRC, the trouble from inbreeding comes after many generations, see pure bred dogs, European royals...


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> IIRC, the trouble from inbreeding comes after many generations, see pure bred dogs, European royals...




Well, the inbred royals have gone away. And in dogs it's only called inbreeding when it goes wrong. However, with dogs and inbred royals, you can put them out of their misery....normal people, not so much, society frowns upon those actions.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Marriage between cousins are becoming a problem in some communities here, especially when the parents and grandparents have married their cousins too.
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm




Closed communities like the Amish in the US have a host of problems stemming from the lack of branches in the family tree.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Silly! Unless you got a talking pencil....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Cop out argument.
> 
> There are reasons for not allowing close relatives to be married.
> 
> I give you the underage one, since in the not so recent past 14 was considered a good age for a girl to be married. But then again this is were your argument bites itself in the tail and chases it: We do no longer consider 14 year olds or even 16 to be of age to consent. Part of the changing definitions.


 
Not a cop out argument, just something that you choose to not address.

I could just as easily argue that there are reasons for not allowing homosexuals to be married. You wouldn't allow me to just say that "there are reasons", would you.

And now, as has been shown, the reasons for such taboos, ostensibly off-spring issues, has apparently been overblown. So now what say you. What is the legitimate reason to keep these people from being married? 

And even if it wasn't, what would give you the right to keep two people in love from being married, if that really is the issue here.  Not to try to get off on a tangent, but even if they decided to have children, who are you to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights?

And age has never been an issue associated with the _definition _of marriage. That has to do with a morality issue. The basics of marriage have always constituted one man and one woman.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2011)

...and it's worth pointing out that while no state permits the marriage of sister and brother, it *does* happen, and more often than we'd like to think. Never mind cousins, or mother and son, or father and daughter:

Look here

or here

there's more....see for yourself.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not a cop out argument, just something that you choose to not address.
> 
> I could just as easily argue that there are reasons for not allowing homosexuals to be married. You wouldn't allow me to just say that "there are reasons", would you.



Well, I said it a couple of times, the risks associated with reproduction of closely related individuals. And it seems it's been an apparent factor early on in civilazation because as far as I can tell every culture has that Taboo.

(and Elder, just because some do shag does not diminish the risk )



> And now, as has been shown, the reasons for such taboos, ostensibly off-spring issues, has apparently been overblown. So now what say you. What is the legitimate reason to keep these people from being married?


it has been shown it's over blown? I do have a great interest in those things and no matter were I turn the consensus is in terms of reproduction that you don't pair first degree relatives. But let's leave it at that.



> And even if it wasn't, what would give you the right to keep two people in love from being married, if that really is the issue here.  Not to try to get off on a tangent, but even if they decided to have children, who are you to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights?


LOL, touche.




> And age has never been an issue associated with the _definition _of marriage. That has to do with a morality issue. The basics of marriage have always constituted one man and one woman.


Well, it has been brought up in the numoerus of tangend silly arguments about dogs and pencils. There is a limit below which one can reasonably assume there can't be educated consent. 

You know the OH EM GEE: gays getting married opens the flood gates for polygamists marrying little girls...or their dogs and ficusses.

And no, age has always been an issue of marriage. While children have been routinely promised to each other, the actual consumation does not take place until the parties have reach puberty. Which is, last I checked, an age thing.

Naturally, as all things seem to be, that, too is not set in stone. Girls seem to reach that point in their lives earlier that they used to in the past.

(but funny you should mention this, kids as young as 14 can get married with parental concent in many states, while you can't let your 20 year old have a beer...)


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, I said it a couple of times, the risks associated with reproduction of closely related individuals. And it seems it's been an apparent factor early on in civilazation because as far as I can tell every culture has that Taboo.
> 
> (and Elder, just because some do shag does not diminish the risk )
> 
> ...


 
I've looked over some of the research.  From what I can tell reading scholarly articles, 1) scientific study is difficult as they have a hard time isolating control groups 2) even in first cousin marriages there is only about a 2.5% increase in abnormality.





> And no, age has always been an issue of marriage. While children have been routinely promised to each other, the actual consumation does not take place until the parties have reach puberty. Which is, last I checked, an age thing.


 
Again, it is an issue with what is legal.  But it did nothing to change the actual definition of marriage.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2011)

The risks may be small when just one set of first cousins marry but the situation here among some Asian communities is that you have a boy and girl marryng who are first cousins but each set of parents have also married their first cousins and the boy's parents and the girl's parents are also very likely to be related. It gets hopelessly lost in trying to work out who is who, the down side is the increase in damaged children.


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 9, 2011)

-I read through about 6 pages of this thread and then my eyes started to glaze over, so forgive me if I'm repeating something or someone.

-I understand tradition and roughly understand how things developed in the world and in the United States but when did someone or some group purchase the word or concept of 'marriage'? The impression I get from some is that they own the concept, therefore they can say how it applies to the world. Sure, some traditions have been around for centuries or more, but they also can change.

-When people get married, should they pay royalties somewhere? Copyright fee?


Andrew


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 9, 2011)

Darksoul said:


> -I read through about 6 pages of this thread and then my eyes started to glaze over, so forgive me if I'm repeating something or someone.
> 
> -I understand tradition and roughly understand how things developed in the world and in the United States but when did someone or some group purchase the word or concept of 'marriage'? The impression I get from some is that they own the concept, therefore they can say how it applies to the world. Sure, some traditions have been around for centuries or more, but they also can change.
> 
> ...


 
That could be turned around also to say that when did the non-traditional groups "purchase" the word and then get to define it?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 10, 2011)

For all purposes, the gov't 'purchased' marriage when it started to tie a lot of fiscal and legal dependencies to it. Proponents of same-sex marriage want to be afforded the same rights.


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 10, 2011)

-I don't think anyone should 'purchase' marriage. The concept of marriage is universal at this point, and I think defining it to exclude certain people is treating them as 2nd class citizens. 'Non-traditional' couples want the same as 'traditional' couples. There has been no proof that calling it marriage for gay or lesbian couples will tear society apart. Eventually, I feel, it will change, maybe not in the U.S., but change will happen. And people adapt, life moves on. As far as leading to polygamous marriages...I'm not sure how I feel about that.

-What we really should be concerned about is when zombies start seeking marriage


Andrew


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 10, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> For all purposes, the gov't 'purchased' marriage when it started to tie a lot of fiscal and legal dependencies to it. Proponents of same-sex marriage want to be afforded the same rights.


 
Which is why a lot of us advocate the government stay out of marriage all together, which would include different tax laws based on marriage.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 11, 2011)

But it's more than tax laws. It's also about legal status. Next of kin, survivor benefits, etc. To prove that you need a simple, accepted document. A marriage certificate does that.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 11, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> But it's more than tax laws. It's also about legal status. Next of kin, survivor benefits, etc. To prove that you need a simple, accepted document. A marriage certificate does that.


 
You can use contracts, wills and power of attorney to accomplish the same things.

For example, next of kin issues can be accomplished with adoption. Considering that a homosexual couple can't conceive a baby anyway, adoption is about the only option.

Survivor's benefits can be done through private contract.  A lot of businesses are recognizing same sex marriage for such things anyway, all without the intervention of the government.


----------



## granfire (Feb 11, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You can use contracts, wills and power of attorney to accomplish the same things.
> 
> For example, next of kin issues can be accomplished with adoption. Considering that a homosexual couple can't conceive a baby anyway, adoption is about the only option.
> 
> Survivor's benefits can be done through private contract.  A lot of businesses are recognizing same sex marriage for such things anyway, all without the intervention of the government.




True. But with one signature on the marriage liscence you have all of the above covered.
(and I believe there are situations where you have to be 'next of kin' and other documents just don't count.)

Also, in this age of raging homophobia a lot of states have considered or implemented a lot of restrictions to keep homosexuals from adopting children. Since being gay is a contagious condition, we all know  

So while the marriage certificate might not help them out there (then again, when the state is that close minded, they won't agree to the civil union either...)


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 11, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You can use contracts, wills and power of attorney to accomplish the same things.
> 
> For example, next of kin issues can be accomplished with adoption. Considering that a homosexual couple can't conceive a baby anyway, adoption is about the only option.
> 
> Survivor's benefits can be done through private contract. A lot of businesses are recognizing same sex marriage for such things anyway, all without the intervention of the government.


 
Next of kin also includes your spouse. And the myriad of agreements would be a nightmare. If my spouse is in the hospital, my marriage certificate proves my legal status. It's easy. If I show with any other document, the family could contest it. Now you have to get the hospital legal dept involved. 

Let me put it this way, would a notarized letter be acceptable as proof of birth? As opposed to a state issued birth certificate?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 11, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> If my spouse is in the hospital, my marriage certificate proves my legal status. It's easy. If I show with any other document, the family could contest it.



Not just can, it has happened many times.  Families have been able to exclude homosexual partners from even visiting their partner in the hospital, no matter how many signed documents they have.  The hospital goes along with it because without marriage, the partner is not "family."

That is one reason among many why homosexual couples are not satisfied with civil unions, they have been shown to be flawed in practice, and place an additional high legal burden on the couple in terms of contracts they must have drawn up.  No heterosexual couple must do so, all they have to do is get married.  Equal protection of the law, and all that.


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 14, 2011)

-If all those straight people would stop having gay babies, this wouldn't be a problem anymore!

Hahaha!

-But I do agree with equal protection of the law.


Andrew


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2011)

Despite the fact that I am for allowing Same-sex marriage, in seven pages of threads no one has been able to Refute Bill's point...

Proponents of Same Sex Marriage Said that everyone who argued against it because it would be used as a "gateway" into other forms of (I hesitate to use the term, but I will by means of Illustration only, not personal belief) Aberrant Marriage were full of crap, it would never happen have been proven incorrect as that argument is exactly what this Mormon group is doing. ​


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Despite the fact that I am for allowing Same-sex marriage, in seven pages of threads no one has been able to Refute Bill's point...​



Did you miss my post?  Anyone can claim any grounds they want for a lawsuit, and proponents of same-sex marriage have no control of that.  Someone could claim that laws against animal cruelty necessitate marrying their goldfish, and that wouldn't make those against animal cruelty for bestiality.  The point will only be relevant if the lawsuit is upheld.  It certainly doesn't make the proponents liars or deceptive in their arguments, since again they have no control over what one individual claims as grounds in a lawsuit.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Did you miss my post?  Anyone can claim any grounds they want for a lawsuit, and proponents of same-sex marriage have no control of that.  Someone could claim that laws against animal cruelty necessitate marrying their goldfish, and that wouldn't make those against animal cruelty for bestiality.  The point will only be relevant if the lawsuit is upheld.  It certainly doesn't make the proponents liars or deceptive in their arguments, since again they have no control over what one individual claims as grounds in a lawsuit.



Completely Understandable.  But it still doesn't change the facts. 

Group A: "If this is allowed, this will happen" 

Group B: "Hogwash thats just plain Stupid, it will never happen."

Group C: "Hey now that this has Happened, this should be allowed as well"

Group A: "See, we told you."

Group B: "What?  Don't blame us! How could we have known?!"

Say what you want, spin it how you like, but that is exactly what's going on.  Bill is Correct about that.  Like I said, I am all for Same Sex Marriage... I'd vote for it no Problem... but I also won't delude myself into believing that Precedent doesn't matter when other groups want to make a Challenge, and I would accept the responsibility for their actions as well.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Group A: "If this is allowed, this will happen"
> 
> Group B: "Hogwash thats just plain Stupid, it will never happen."
> 
> ...



But it hasn't actually happened.  So the criticism is misplaced.  I don't think anyone ever said "If gay marriage goes through, no one will ever want to use it in their argument for polygamy."  What they said was one won't lead to the other in actuality, not in some random person's argument/lawsuit.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 15, 2011)

Yeah, I dunno, sounds like splitting hairs to me.  

Personally, If this were in the U.S. I'd accept the fact that I support Same Sex Marriage and as a result, I have helped set precedent that can be used to Justify claims for other types of "unusual" Marriages.  

If others want to deny that so be it, after all it is the American Way to place blame squarely on the other guy.  *shrug*


----------



## Kacey (Feb 16, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Despite the fact that I am for allowing Same-sex marriage, in seven pages of threads no one has been able to Refute Bill's point...
> 
> Proponents of Same Sex Marriage Said that everyone who argued against it because it would be used as a "gateway" into other forms of (I hesitate to use the term, but I will by means of Illustration only, not personal belief) Aberrant Marriage were full of crap, it would never happen have been proven incorrect as that argument is exactly what this Mormon group is doing. ​



I've said the same thing twice:  there is no way to prove that those wishing to legalize polygamous marriages ONLY came forward because of the same-sex marriage issues.  It is possible - even likely - that the timing of their current push is related to the issue of same-sex marriage - but there's no way to prove that it wouldn't have happened anyway.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 16, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Despite the fact that I am for allowing Same-sex marriage, in seven pages of threads no one has been able to Refute Bill's point...
> 
> Proponents of Same Sex Marriage Said that everyone who argued against it because it would be used as a "gateway" into other forms of (I hesitate to use the term, but I will by means of Illustration only, not personal belief) Aberrant Marriage were full of crap, it would never happen have been proven incorrect as that argument is exactly what this Mormon group is doing. ​



I dont care to try to refute it. My voice is simply so what if people said this wouldnt happen and it did. so what? Personally Bush saying there was those weapons in iraq and they didnt find none - now thats a lie worth crowing about. not this.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 17, 2011)

Kacey said:


> I've said the same thing twice:  there is no way to prove that those wishing to legalize polygamous marriages ONLY came forward because of the same-sex marriage issues.



That is not the argument put forth, however, so I fail to see your point. 

If they had simply shown up and said "Hey we want this" that's one thing, and Id agree with you.  Them saying "Hey you allowed this, so why not us" is a completley different argument.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 17, 2011)

Comparing marriage law to gun law is ... just ignorant, though I understand the slippery slope axiom.

1.  History has proven the ill effects of polygamous marriage and polygamous societies as noted in the article and evidenced in compounds in Utah.

2.  History has NOT proven the ill effects of homosexual marriage nor relationships except that everyone's Catholic Pucker Factor seems to increase exponentially when faced with the prospect that some of those relationships they just can't seem to kill will actually become defended by law.

3.  Back to the weapons laws analogy ... reducing the size of legally purchased, open-carry weapons is somewhat understandable when we look at violence and how it has managed to become reduced with some legal intervention (though I worry about too much restriction).  Including homosexuals into marital union law just makes sense in the same fashion - and since marriage affords some very specific rewards, there can be no reward for marrying a sheep ... or a couch ... or a warm, damp towel for that matter.  

I'm not terribly worried that polygamous marriage will become legalized anytime soon, so long as we keep the Mormons (or Catholics or any other specific group - including old, rich, white men in the energy business) from overtaking the most powerful seats in government (uh oh - too late on the old white dudes).

There is less of a link between gay marriage and polygamy than there is with heterosexuality and polygamy.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 17, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> I'm not terribly worried that polygamous marriage will become legalized anytime soon, so long as we keep the Mormons (or Catholics or any other specific group - including old, rich, white men in the energy business) from overtaking the most powerful seats in government (uh oh - too late on the old white dudes).
> 
> There is less of a link between gay marriage and polygamy than there is with heterosexuality and polygamy.



I don't think that is what Bill was Arguing.  I think Bill was arguing everyone said that link was preposterous and no one would use it, now someone has.


----------

