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

[elder999]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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