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

[Blade96]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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



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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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



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.

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

 

[Blade96]

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]

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]

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.