Will Gay Marraige Set a Precedent For Polygamy?

Well this discussion needs to continue because it's definitely not going away in the public eye or the legal venues the gay marraige agenda is marching up.

Vote as you like and continue the discussion.

 

Link to the old thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...et-polygamy-along-ride-52.html#post1061076507

 

Thanks for the link SFJeff. How is polygamy different?

 

Well it is different because gay and polygamy are two different things, but personally, I believe that the government should not be allowed to limit or control the choices of consenting adults. Gay, polygamist, and even incest marriage, between consenting adults should be legal. The government should be barred from any control in whether or not consenting adults are allowed to marry.

 

Its like the difference between SFJeff and JeffLV- something everyone else in the world can tell the difference between, but not you.

 

Still trying to get me to accidentally identify myself (jeffLV) as the same person as SFJeff? Is this intentional or accidental?

 

That would be a subject for another thread. Do you have anything to say about polygamy?

 

I don't understand the thread at all, what's one got to do with the other?

 

Apparently not because you keep bringing it up.

 

Is the discussion of legalising polygamy really going on anywhere outside the realms of the internet?

For what it's worth, I don't see any direct link. Gay marriage is about who gets married, like mixed-race marriage or re-marriage for the divorced. Polygamy is about the number of people involved in a marriage.

 

May I ask for some clarification of the OP?

If "sexual behaviors" is supposedly the new precedent, then what was the old precedent? A discussion of legal marriage and its implementation requires knowledge of what marriage is for, if it's for anything at all. The marriage between convicted child molesters and axe murderers in prison is protected as a fundamental right, even without regard to if they can or can't reproduce.

So it would appear to me (unless you can give me better reasoning), that marriage as between a man and a woman is arbitrary. It's a "majority says so" rule, and as such has no reasoning behind it. If this is the case, then there needs be no reasoning behind distinguishing polygamy and homosexuality. It is the responsibility of the party supporting the status quo to give the reasoning for supporting the status quo, and it would be hypocritical to hold those who argue against the status quo to a higher standard.

 

Exactly. There may be similar justification (i.e. "love" or whatever is used to say that same-sex couples and polygamists should be able to marry), but it's still a different question with different impacts. Polygamy multiplies the right several times over, and eliminates the mutual consent established in members of monogamous marriage. This creates an unequal application of the law, and difficulty in executing contract law between multiple parties when contract law us usually just between two parties. I'm not saying polygamy is right or wrong, but it is a different problem with different issues associated with it.

People also have different ideas about the danger Polygamy and Homosexuality presents to children who are raised in those environments - justified or not, the question of if polygamy is dangerous for children and homosexuality is dangerous for children are two different questions.

So to answer the OP, yes, gay marriage would open the door some to examining the legal reasonings FOR marriage, but that's only half the question. Just because both parties want to marry, this dos not mean that Polygamists and Homosexuals would benefit similarly, and it does not mean they present the same danger to third parties (i.e. the "protect the children" argument). In other words, deciding if homosexuals are dangerous and deciding if polygamous are dangerous are two different questions.

 

Why homophobes always make stupid questioning?

The answer is so easy as in the other countries that homosexual marriage is legal have opened the door to polygamy? No.

 

Funny how the GOPukes all hate govt mandating health insurance but love govt mandating who can and can't marry.

 

I suppose it's entirely possible that polygamy (or is it polyandry? I forget which is which) could be legalized on similar grounds, namely that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry.

 

Possible, yes. If polygamists marry for the same reason, and there's no legally viable reason for why they should not. That said, the question of if there's a legally viable reason for why homosexuals should not be able to marry and if there's a legally viable reason for why polygamists should not be able to marry are two different questions. The question of if there's different reasons to object are a big "if" though, and I question who's burden of proof it is to show that polygamous unions do or do not also suffer the same objections.

 

Funny how the GOPukes all hate govt mandating health insurance but love govt mandating who can and can't marry.

 

Who knows, who cares? I have no plans to marry a second person...meither does my wife. What someone else does is his or her business. I don';t give a rat's tukhus.

/thread

 

Nothing, really...but SIlly the Human Spambot is trying to jam them together to further her dishonest agenda.

 

It's just organised promiscuity.

Which is fine with me.

And I would not exclude polygamy based on bisexuality. Why would you?

 

Polygamy means multiple concurrent marriages. Compare to bigamy, which is just two concurrent marriages. The term doesn't contain a gender restriction, though many people use it as if it were synonymous with polygyny (see below).

Polyandry means multiple husbands.

Polygyny means multiple wives.

Hope that helps.

 

It's hysterical that the only reason Silhouette starts these threads is to make people say ZOMG POLYGAMY!!! I CAN"T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE ANYMORE, as if polygamy is some big deal, and yet everyone posting here has met the suggestion with a collective "meh."

Time to give up, Silhouette. We've shown you that, despite your suspicions to the contrary, linking polygamy with gay marriage has not caused the support for the later to decline one iota, and in fact has drummed up quite a bit of support for the former.

What a laughably amateurish miscalculation on your part.

 

While I don't have a problem with any group of consenting adults entering into some sort of living arrangement legalizing polygamy does have one political implication that gay marriage does not: citizenship rights.

When we finally get over the gay marriage nonsense here and it becomes completely legal same sex spouses born outside the US will be eligible for a green card and, after a few years, citizenship. This is how it works right now for traditional marriages and I think it should work the same way for gay couples.

I do have a problem with the idea of some guy marrying 15 women at once, getting them all green cards and teeing them up for citizenship. It just seems like a fast-track loophole to naturalization and it would be tempting for many people to abuse the new privilege. I suppose an exception could be carved out so that an American can petition for one green card through marriage only.

The more I think about it the more it seems this one component is substantial enough to put polygamous marriage into a different category than gay or straight marriages (which are more alike than they are different.)

 

polygamy is not legal for heterosexuals, so why would homosexuals request this right?

it's about equal rights, not extra rights

 

I think you'll find a fair amount of support basically saying the government should butt out, both in the case of polygamy and same-sex marriage. Myself included - I would really not care if polygamy is legalized. Like bulls said, the irony in this thread is it's it's purpose is to damage gay marriage - but in reality, if you didn't link the two before the thread, you're not going to link them after - instead, you just create more support for polygamy.

I believe that if that were to happen, separate or adapted laws would have to be in place to apply the laws equally and in a structure that makes sense for a multi-person marriage.

I also believe that the questions, objections, and legal hurdles, about polygamy are different from homosexuality, and the two need not be linked. They will be justified in similar fashion, but asking if homosexuals and polygamists are somehow a danger to society is a separate question.