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

[kiai]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kacey]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Carol]

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.
Ketterson sent a copy of the marriage license. That changed everything.

“I was respected,” he said. “From that moment on, I was next of kin. They were amazing.”


The USNA alumni association sent Ketterson a letter expressing condolence for the loss of his husband.

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

 

[Blade96]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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