Here is why it's consistent to keep polygamy illegal, but gay marriage legal

[redandblack]

I've been seeing both sides of the debate when it comes to polygamy. The anti-gay marriage crowd asked a fair question - if the definition of marriage can change from one man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, on what grounds can polygamy be denied given it is involving consenting adults.

The pro gay-marriage crowd (playing damage control a bit) would dismiss the question or simply state polgamy is not in big demand. But either response was deflecting from the question.

Last night, after about four IPAs, I actually figured it out.

When marriage is denied to gays, it is denying a person something than another person has a legal right to.

But in making polygamy illegal, it is discriminating against everyone - including gays, straights, men and women. Therefore, in a skewed way, there is no one excluded from the anti-polygamy law because it is forbidden to all.

[Daniel91]

In fact, our modern society has placed human desire on the throne and now people can wish anything and their desires will be fulfilled if enough people request it.
It's enough to use in the campaign strong words like ''human rights'' and ''equality '' and sooner or later everything becomes acceptable and legally regulated, if there is enough pressure in the public.
So, because of it, I'm sure that now, when gay marriages are legal, very soon polygamy will become legal to.
Men will be able to legally have two or more women and the same will be true for women.
I see no reason that this does not happen in the next few years.
If we use the principle of human rights for the guy marriages, can we apply for polygamy other criteria?
Once Pandora's box is open who can close it again?

[shevon]

I've been seeing both sides of the debate when it comes to polygamy. The anti-gay marriage crowd asked a fair question - if the definition of marriage can change from one man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, on what grounds can polygamy be denied given it is involving consenting adults.

The pro gay-marriage crowd (playing damage control a bit) would dismiss the question or simply state polgamy is not in big demand. But either response was deflecting from the question.

Last night, after about four IPAs, I actually figured it out.

When marriage is denied to gays, it is denying a person something than another person has a legal right to.

But in making polygamy illegal, it is discriminating against everyone - including gays, straights, men and women. Therefore, in a skewed way, there is no one excluded from the anti-polygamy law because it is forbidden to all.

You make a strong point. The only thing I'd add is that there is a third response from supporters of same-sex marriage. Many of us went on record as being perfectly comfortable with polygamy.

[Nora12322]

Its the same. Gay marriage is destructive to children and the family unit. So is polygamy.

[rodzimajid]

I think a more valid fight would be religious descrimnation

why should a Christin marriage be honored, but not a Mormon one

we all know Christians pushed anti-polygamy laws because of their original hatred of Mormons

Christian's fears at the time were that Mormons would out populate them

[eaglerock]

I don't recall gays being denied the same rights as heteros to marry the opposite sex, which is our natural state.

I want to know what right you have telling a minstrel 12 year old from marrying a 80 year old man. Are we making a moral judgement when preventing it? Resisting gay marriage was just another moral judgment that happen to have a natural backing.

[saddampbuh]

When marriage is denied to gays, it is denying a person something than another person has a legal right to.

no its not. normal and homosexual people both have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex.

[albalinux]

I don't recall gays being denied the same rights as heteros to marry the opposite sex, which is our natural state.

Some was true of inter-racial marriage, a Black man could marry a black women, but not a white women.

Racial discrimination and gender discrimination are not allowed.

Now we will see if religious discrimination is allowed in the polygamy fight.

[ObscureBean]

I'm not against either but it is clear that polygamy would add a whole new dimension to complexity as a whole. It is impossible to accurately predict the effects of polygamy on humanity in the long term but right off the bat, you can expect a strong shift toward more intricate versions of control and power. A system that sees more than 2 persons in an intimate setting over a long period of time will unavoidably resort to 'right of power' (power in any way, shape or form) to stabilize itself.  

[redandblack]

It's obvious most of you guys didn't read my OP.

Name me one person who is allowed to be in a polygamous marriage. You can't because it's illegal for everyone. Therefore, it is not like gay marriage at all. Marriage was a right denied to some individuals, but not all. But in the case of polygamy, it's illegal for everyone - be they straight, gay, man or woman.

[abasin]

But in making polygamy illegal, it is discriminating against everyone - including gays, straights, men and women. Therefore, in a skewed way, there is no one excluded from the anti-polygamy law because it is forbidden to all.

Isn't this the same basic argument that goes "anybody can get married, so long as you marry somebody of the opposite sex"?

[redandblack]

Isn't this the same basic argument that goes "anybody can get married, so long as you marry somebody of the opposite sex"?

No, because no specific individual is given a right to polygamy over another.

The argument from your quote clearly discriminated against those who wanted to marry the same gender. But in the case of polygamy, no one can be in a marriage of more than two - be they straight or gay, man or woman. It's precicesly because polygamy is outlawed for everyone that it doesn't discriminate against anyone.

[Tusk]

There is no harm to kids being raised by gay couples, There are many cases of men and women who had children in their youth and later came out of the closet, divorced and raised their kids in gay relationships who turned out to be healthy and hetero. The morality brigade should rather worry about why society should tolerate people think they have the right to interfere with others lifestyles.

[Lethn]

Its the same. Gay marriage is destructive to children and the family unit. So is polygamy.

I posted up very conclusive data to show that's complete bullshit, if that's all your argument is against gay and polygmal marriage then you really need to find something new to get angry about.

See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1111159.msg11801993#msg11801993

Like Bryant, I suspect you assholes will completely ignore it in favour of repeating yourself to other people that might believe you.

[Wilikon]

Isn't this the same basic argument that goes "anybody can get married, so long as you marry somebody of the opposite sex"?

No, because no specific individual is given a right to polygamy over another.

The argument from your quote clearly discriminated against those who wanted to marry the same gender. But in the case of polygamy, no one can be in a marriage of more than two - be they straight or gay, man or woman. It's precicesly because polygamy is outlawed for everyone that it doesn't discriminate against anyone.

Because polygamy is illegal for all, polygamy relationships do not exist? because gay marriage was illegal (in some states), homosexual relationships did not exist? Because interracial marriage was illegal, there were not case of black/white relationships?

A marriage is a contract. The dude has to marry at least one woman. The other wife is left with less rights than the real wife. Both women are happy, have children, live under the same roof.
Why would anyone deny equal justice to both women, letting the real wife have all the rights once the husband dies? Because it is justice? Because it is the law?

Everyone in this situation is an adult. Gay adults should be happy, but not polygamists? Are you saying polygamists are less 'adult' than gays and should not be able to know and define what love is?

By the way, "government cannot define love" is pretty much the justice's conclusion for ssm. But you are saying in the case of polygamists government SHOULD definitely define what love is because love is defined the same for everyone else... Is it?

Give it time. Now that the supreme justices gave themselves the power to write new laws I don't see how people like you with infinite amount of IPAs can stop the legalization of polygamy in the future.

[eaglerock]

Some was true of inter-racial marriage, a Black man could marry a black women, but not a white women.

Racial discrimination and gender discrimination are not allowed.

Now we will see if religious discrimination is allowed in the polygamy fight.

Biologically, it would appear that a minstrating 12 year old would be an adult. While most of us agree today they are not mature enough, what is to stop this from being the next barrier in the future? Same sex is a perversion of our natural state, yet it exist now. As perverted as it is to think of a 12 year old getting married, what's to stop this perversion in the future?

[abasin]

No, because no specific individual is given a right to polygamy over another.

The argument from your quote clearly discriminated against those who wanted to marry the same gender. But in the case of polygamy, no one can be in a marriage of more than two - be they straight or gay, man or woman. It's precicesly because polygamy is outlawed for everyone that it doesn't discriminate against anyone.

So all we need is for utah to make polygamy legal, and every state has to follow suit?

[krenare]

I've been seeing both sides of the debate when it comes to polygamy. The anti-gay marriage crowd asked a fair question - if the definition of marriage can change from one man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, on what grounds can polygamy be denied given it is involving consenting adults.

The pro gay-marriage crowd (playing damage control a bit) would dismiss the question or simply state polgamy is not in big demand. But either response was deflecting from the question.

Last night, after about four IPAs, I actually figured it out.

When marriage is denied to gays, it is denying a person something than another person has a legal right to.

But in making polygamy illegal, it is discriminating against everyone - including gays, straights, men and women. Therefore, in a skewed way, there is no one excluded from the anti-polygamy law because it is forbidden to all.

Okay, it sounds good. But what about the old argument that marriage was not forbidden to gays before the SCOTUS ruled. They could still marry. Marriage to another same sex couple was forbidden to all, everyone regardless of orientation. No one could marry someone of their own gender, no matter what or throw in any caveat. One could say under the old system, all it did was treat men as men and women as women, with marriage allowed to only one man and one woman.

Personally, I have said this until I am blue in the face. Get government out of marriage. Only those who want to get married and are of consenting age, let them marry whom ever they want and how many they want. Let the people actually involved decide, not government.

[redandblack]

So all we need is for utah to make polygamy legal, and every state has to follow suit?

No need to because polygamy is illegal for everyone.

[abasin]

No need to because polygamy is illegal for everyone.

No, if Utah makes it legal, then it is legal for people who choose to get married in Utah. Therefore using your own logic, it must be legal in every state.