If you're okay with homosexual marriage would you support..

......Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry?

I'm curious. Are those who are okay with homosexual marriage and adoption, also okay with the above? Do you defend the rights of those who may want to "express that freedom", and live that sort of "alternative lifestyle"? And should their "rights and freedoms" be enshrined into law as well, in your country? And if so, would you extend that right even further, and permit them their "right" to adopt if they wanted?

See I could understand someone that was okay with homosexual marriage AND this. At least then there would be a degree of consistency. I would not agree with it, but like I say, at least there would be consistency in that position.

What I cannot and probably will not understand, is when I read a homosexual guy today being asked the same question and he very speedily said that he would not at all be supportive of any moves to legalise it.

Why not? Is he then not imposing his "bigotry" on other consenting adults?

Does that not make him(or those like him) a hypocrite?

 

Yes to all of the above.

Yes and yes.

 

If polygamy was given marriage benefits though that would be more complicated - because I'd assume there'd have to be a limit on the number of partners for purely practical reasons. Ex. Let's say that 700 people married, and adopted a child and all 700 were the 'legal guardians' - how would a judge be able to work out custody arrangements with 700 "married people'?

 

Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry?

What we have now is serial monogamy. Before the divorce laws were made easier, we had monogamy and adultery. I fail to see much of a difference.

Anyone who wants more than one spouse at a time is hard of hearing and has more money than most of us.

I favor minding my own business as concerns the personal affairs (pun intended) of consenting adults.

 

I don't really care about multi-partner marriage however the logistics involved in making this a "legal" arrangement are hugely different to those involving a couple straight or gay.

It really only works in patriarchal societies where men basically "own" the women they are married too. Also note that these are among the least likely to accept legal same-sex marriage so I don't really see a connection between the two.

I've tried to start threads where people can discuss the logistics involved in multi-partner marriage as a standalone issue: who is married to who, if one partner marries another, is the new partner married to everyone else? How do you prevent endless "string" marriages where people are married to others without even knowing it? Trouble is no-one seems to be that interested and the threads usually die within a page unlike same-sex marriage threads which often top out after 50 pages.

My suspicion is that people haven't really thought out the contractual similarity between multi-party marriage and same-sex marriage (and also the custody ramifications for adoption and children conceived naturally within the marital group) and really just want to use the subject as a means to bash gays who are in most respects similarly and in some cases identically situated to heterosexual couples with respect to the administration of the contract.

Beyond that, who really cares?

 

I believe in "Don't ask me, don't tell me". Don't like those things and wouldn't want them for myself but, hey, I don't like Republicans, either. I just ain't going to be able to legislate them out of existence any time soon.

 

Not necessarily. Homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage are two different prospects and the could be arguments made in relation to either one which don't apply to the other. I think each needs to address separately on it's own merits, certainly from the practical point of view.

 

MOD EDIT>>>TROLLING AND RESPONSE REMOVED

So is that a yes to formally legalising polygamy, polygyny and polyandry?

 

Ah. But you cannot make ANY exceptions, since by doing so, that would be "discriminatory". And "bigotry". Moreover it would be "letting the state meddle".

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently you do, since you opened the thread and chose to make a long post.

 

But why?

If it is consenting adults etc, why should they be denied their rights?

That sounds like prejudice and bigotry.

 

As far as American law (which is a lot simpler to understand than UK law) you can discriminate as long as that discrimination is, at the very least, rationally related to a governmental interest. There is no rationale involved in not offering the marriage contract to same-sex couples because they can be treated exactly the same way as opposite sex couples with respect to the administration of that contract. As both the poster you're replying to and I pointed out, it's near impossible to apply the dynamics of that same contract across a group. The courts would have no way to apply the law as it currently stands and that is a rational reason to deny the contract to groups in its current form.

Like I say, invent a new contract (it will probably take a ton of lawyers and quite a bit of time) and multiple-marriage could become a reality. Doesn't have anything to do with gays though, you could do that even if gays could not marry.

 

I meant I don't care if polygamists get married. I really, really don't. But I do care about people who use unreasoned arguments as a means to bash gays.

 

You miss my point.

The entire argument of those that argue in favour of homosexual marriage is based around consenting adults being able to do as THEY like, in regard to formal marriage. If that is applicable, then it would simply be discrimination not to afford that same "freedom" to any combination of "consenting adults", who wanted to marry in any number of ways.

- - - Updated - - -

I have seen no evidence of "gay bashing". Please do not be a false witness.

 

I like where you are going with this. You are clearly not bashing gay people, you're saying where do we draw the line when it comes to marriage. I have some thoughts of my own on similar issues although I'm not going to bring them up today.

 

That's not the legal argument though. The legal argument is that there is absolutely no reason not to allow them access to the contract. They are "dynamically" the same as those who are currently allowed access. Groups aren't. That's the point.

Which it isn't, it's just a very simplistic understanding of a complex legal issue.

Allowable discrimination if its rationally related to a compelling governmental interest.

That is the kernel of an argument but you need to address the question of logistics to flesh out the picture.

Then why not make a thread concerning polygamy which doesn't even mention gays? Why not just say if couples can marry why can't groups as long as they're all consenting adults? You could make exactly the same arguments using just that context.

 

A straight answer? IT ALL DEPENDS!

I bet YOU wouldn't have as much problem with polygamy than with gay marriage. . .after all, there are PLENTY of example in the Bible about polygamy. . .and fathering children with one of the wive's servant!

I personally do not find anything wrong with polygamy IF IT IS among CONSENSUAL ADULTS, and not with 14 or 16 year old girls being "sold" to marrying a 40 + man with 3 mature wives!
I would support polygamy IF it doesn't mean that EVERY WIFE receives the SAME amount of "spousal social security" if they stay married to the guy for 10 years or so. . .THAT would certainly mean the demise of Social security payment to anyone!

But. . .I haven't seen any widespread DEMAND for recognition of polygamy. . .so, why are you asking?

 

Thank you.

It really underscores a point I make often that perfectly fair and reasonable questions are often stifled by false accusations, one of which you spotted right there.

It was never about "gay bashing", indeed, if someone were to make that allegation against another in real life, with no substance(which there isn't), then I think it is time the law stepped in and started fining people that did such things. Not a civil offence, a criminal offence. Why not? Why should millions of people effectively be stifled and slandered, and those that are complicit in this suppression of discussion and smearing can walk away, scot free? That is definitely something I would amend in law.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and thanks again.

 

So?

That precise same argument is made by those who opposed homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals wanted the law to adapt to them.

Why should other consenting adults, with different ideas be discriminated against?

Sounds like bigotry.

 

It makes no apparent difference which I "prefer", remember?

It should not be the business of the state or church, remember?

Therefore, irrespective of what I may approve of, if one supports homosexual marriage but NOT polygamy et all, then they are, by definition, being discriminatory.

 

I have no philosophical objection to polyamory, which is three or more consenting adults regardless of gender. That said, there are no Constitutional issues that would make it not being legal a violation of equal protection, unlike SSM. In addition, there are SERIOUS logistical issues before such a thing could be practical. Tax tables, power of attorney, child custody, multi-party divorce, amongst probably a dozen others.

Why do you continue to make whiny posts about SSM? Have you realized the war is lost?

 

The "war"? What odd parlance.

The answer to your "question" is that PF is a discussion forum. People start threads on matters that may interest them or their peers. The good thing is that if you don't like a topic you can do this ace thing called not bothering with it. I find it works a treat with the hundreds of subjects that I cannot be bothered with.

 

Also, one cannot make the argument "but there doesn't seem to be a widespread demand for it". So what? Perhaps, like homosexuals, they just haven't come out? Maybe they have been suppressed by bigotry and misconceptions, and have felt socially pressured into convention?

Also, it doesn't matter if there were 30,000 or 300 that would take it up. The point(or so I was led to believe), is that no one has the right to tell consenting adults what to do, esp on an important point like marriage.

You either run with that all the way or not at all. Because to start making new exceptions is discriminatory.

 

It does matter. Greatly!

As another poster noted, would a 300 person marriage that had a member die have 299 spouses entitled to full social security benefits? That would bankrupt the country even faster than we already are. Child support? Custody? Would a woman who is not the biological mother of a child but was a part of the multi-party marriage even have standing to sue for custody? And who has the authority to make medical decisions for someone who is in a coma, and thus is incapable of making their own?

Finally, as I mentioned (as have several others), you're missing the most important aspect. There is a valid equal protection argument to be made that restricting same gender COUPLES from being wed is Unconstitutional. There is no such argument for any unit larger than 2.

 

No it most surely does not, and to make it matter now would be discrimination and bigotry.

I do not recall homosexuals having to reach some magical number at which point it was okay for them to marry.

 

Seriously? You're going to bring up the constitution. The constitution has been consistently violated by governments right and left since forever. If you're going to bring up the constitution, please bring up the Snowden leaks which was a MASSIVE violation of the fourth amendment.