Gay marriage vs. pulygamy

[PratchettFan]

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

There were also laws that didn't allow mixed race marriages, marriages between jews and gentiles, marriages between royals and commoners, etc. Over the centuries we have managed to do away with these laws without moving on to allow marriages between brothers and sisters, humans and animals, and other such nonsense.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that each new situation will not be evaluated anew and decided on its merits .

My only major beef with polygamy is that we have no laws for it. In gay marraige, all the straight marriage rules apply. In polygamy.......we just don't have answers to the legal questions it provides, don't have the laws, don't have the case law.

So the gov't would have to get busy making those laws, and the tax codes to go with it.

It would be an elaborate overhaul. Unlike interracial marriage or gay marriage, this would require all new laws, and dozens of them. Its an arrangement not compatible with existing marriage law in any meaningful way.

I'm not saying we couldn't do it. I'm just saying it would take lots of legislation, even more court battle before we have anything resembling a cohesive set of marriage laws again that could encompass polygamy.

I would hate to think the gov't saying "We don't know how to control this" as being a valid reason for people not to be allowed.

its not a matter of control. A third person just increases the complexity of the situation by an order of magnitude. It opens up all sorts of legal questions that simply don't exist in 2 person marriage. And we have no law for any of it.

For example, you have a married couple that adds a third later. If they get 'divorced', do they all get divorced, or do they just spin someone off while the other two remained married. Are they all required to have sex with each other for the marriage to be consummated? If they get divorced, is property split 3 ways evenly, or is it a matter of proportion of time that you've been part of the union.

Our laws have zero answers for any of that. Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our conception of marriage, our legal precedent and all of our laws. Where as with variants of 2 person marriage, we can answer all of those questions easily.

Nonsense. Marriage is a contract and nothing more. We have all kinds of case law on multiple partner contracts. They happen all the time.

 

[WinterBorn]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

I thought it was a silly comparison as well, which is why I disagreed with you. You don't protect something by banning it, which is what you are arguing.

We have a male dominated society and polygamy is not allowed. So apparently this fix didn't work. In fact, it doesn't even stop polygamy, it just makes those people you are concerned about outlaws and prevents them from seeking help from the law. It is counterproductive. Rather than our male dominated society determining for you what kind of marriage contract you want for yourself, perhaps we should let you make that decision.

I would point out that your entire perspective is male dominated. You talk about polygamy as if the only person involved is the man. In fact, most of those involved are women. Your position is that women are incapable of deciding if that is right for them and only a bunch of men should be allowed to make that decision for them. I would offer this is a harmful social trend.

" Your position is that women are incapable of deciding if that is right for them and only a bunch of men should be allowed to make that decision for them."

 

[SwimExpert]

No, I have not blamed it all on religion. I have simply stated that polygamy has not been tried in modern times, in a society that allows sexual equality, and without the heavy hand of religion.

For that matter, it hasn't been tried by one eyed, one horned, flying, purple people eaters either. Maybe it will work this time around!!

*shakes head*

As I asked before, what are you basing your claim on? Tribal marriages in 500BC? Marriages in the caste system in India?

*facepalm*

Education. Get some.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

It is not a malady any more than heterosexuality is a malady. You are not trained to be attracted to one sex or the other. What your are saying it absolute nonsense.

Nope. I'm right! You just don't like it that I'm right.

No. You are wrong and there is no way to justify what you say. At no time in my life did I sit down to decide which sex I would be attracted to. At no time did my parents or school explain to me how to be sexually attracted. There was no training involved, no application of common sense. I have never met a single person in my life who developed sexual attraction in the manner you describe - yet you claim it is universal. You are wrong, you just don't like being wrong.

There IS training involved. Or, on the flip side of that coin, a lack of training is a form of training. When one is allowed to follow their sin nature without someone teaching the consequences of sin then that person is improperly trained which results in that person following the lusts of his/her own heart instead of seeking righteousness.

No, there isn't. Who you are attracted to is entirely physical and you have no control over it. What you are talking about is just repression of how you feel, which is destructive to everyone involved.

 

[DriftingSand]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

 

[PratchettFan]

I thought it was a silly comparison as well, which is why I disagreed with you.

Your own argument is ridiculous, and so you disagree with me? That's not just silly, it's outright stupid.

You don't protect something by banning it, which is what you are arguing.

Purple! Because aliens don't wear hats. That seems to be the level of intellect you're posting with.

A little over your head, huh?

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I have not blamed it all on religion. I have simply stated that polygamy has not been tried in modern times, in a society that allows sexual equality, and without the heavy hand of religion.

For that matter, it hasn't been tried by one eyed, one horned, flying, purple people eaters either. Maybe it will work this time around!!

*shakes head*

As I asked before, what are you basing your claim on? Tribal marriages in 500BC? Marriages in the caste system in India?

*facepalm*

Education. Get some.

Questions. Answer one.

 

[PratchettFan]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

Why am I not surprised you've had more than one relationship.

 

[WinterBorn]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

"Equal" does not mean "Identical".

But when one gender is not allowed the same rights or benefits as the other, that is not about who is good at what. That is about mistreating people.

 

[PratchettFan]

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

There were also laws that didn't allow mixed race marriages, marriages between jews and gentiles, marriages between royals and commoners, etc. Over the centuries we have managed to do away with these laws without moving on to allow marriages between brothers and sisters, humans and animals, and other such nonsense.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that each new situation will not be evaluated anew and decided on its merits .

My only major beef with polygamy is that we have no laws for it. In gay marraige, all the straight marriage rules apply. In polygamy.......we just don't have answers to the legal questions it provides, don't have the laws, don't have the case law.

Would a business then have to provide insurance for all 10 wives? Sounds pretty dumb. If you want more than one partner it isn't marriage, it's swinging. Don't get married.

Swinging is about sex. Poly is about a relationship and love. There is a huge difference.

I am not specifically advocating polygamy, as much as I am arguing against the reasons given that it should not be allowed. I personally know numerous people involved in poly relationships. They seem perfectly happy.

And nothing says they can't have a relationship. But it doesn't need to be marriage. If you want to be dedicated to one other person then get married. If you want a bunch of people then well have a relationship.

Why should they not have the same rights as anyone else? Whether it needs to be marriage is really a decision for them to make.

 

[DriftingSand]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

Why am I not surprised you've had more than one relationship.

LOL. Haven't we all?

 

[DriftingSand]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

"Equal" does not mean "Identical".

But when one gender is not allowed the same rights or benefits as the other, that is not about who is good at what. That is about mistreating people.

Women have the same rights as men but women are built differently (physically, mentally, and emotionally) and generally don't have the same drive as men. This results in what appears to be a disproportionately unequal result.

 

[WinterBorn]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

"Equal" does not mean "Identical".

But when one gender is not allowed the same rights or benefits as the other, that is not about who is good at what. That is about mistreating people.

Women have the same rights as men but women are built differently (physically, mentally, and emotionally) and generally don't have the same drive as men. This results in what appears to be a disproportionately unequal result.

What?? So when a woman is paid less for the same job, it is because she is built differently?

As for the drive, I would beg to differ. I would wonder if the drive is not mostly society trying to teach women something.

The double standards are numerous.

 

[WinterBorn]

And exactly what do you mean by the claim that you are the "dominant partner"? Your partner must be submissive to you? What is wrong with partners being equal?

 

[PratchettFan]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant. I'm a dominant male who has always treated women kindly and generously. I don't see women as my equal because we're not equal. We're different. Woman have strengths and men have strengths. Women are better at some things while men are better at others. In all of my relationships I have been the dominant partner while relying heavily on the female perspective in decision-making.

Why am I not surprised you've had more than one relationship.

LOL. Haven't we all?

Nope. If you do it right you should only do it once. Barring death, of course.

 

[Dot Com]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

What's a "pulygamy"?

Is that when you want to marry your wrist because you pull on your dick too much fantasizing about homos?

true. At first I thought this was another Judicial review review thread

As to the OP- I believe consenting adults can do as they choose as long as it doesn't directly harm others.

 

[SwimExpert]

I thought it was a silly comparison as well, which is why I disagreed with you.

Your own argument is ridiculous, and so you disagree with me? That's not just silly, it's outright stupid.

You don't protect something by banning it, which is what you are arguing.

Purple! Because aliens don't wear hats. That seems to be the level of intellect you're posting with.

A little over your head, huh?

More l like under my feet. Your logical reasoning abilities are so atrocious I can't be bothered to dirty myself trying to explain it to you any further.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant.

*facepalm*

Because it worked so well every other time....

 

[Brain357]

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

There were also laws that didn't allow mixed race marriages, marriages between jews and gentiles, marriages between royals and commoners, etc. Over the centuries we have managed to do away with these laws without moving on to allow marriages between brothers and sisters, humans and animals, and other such nonsense.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that each new situation will not be evaluated anew and decided on its merits .

My only major beef with polygamy is that we have no laws for it. In gay marraige, all the straight marriage rules apply. In polygamy.......we just don't have answers to the legal questions it provides, don't have the laws, don't have the case law.

Would a business then have to provide insurance for all 10 wives? Sounds pretty dumb. If you want more than one partner it isn't marriage, it's swinging. Don't get married.

Because you say so?

Sure. More than two people is not marriage. If two married people want to live with others sure. But I don't see why we would allow them all to be married and rewrite all our laws. A business shouldn't have to provide healthcare to some guys harem because he has the family plan.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why would a male dominated society "do substantial harm to half of the population?" It behooves men to treat women with kindness and respect even when men are dominant.

*facepalm*

Because it worked so well every other time....

So no mention of the evidence you are using to form your opinions? Just using the phrase "studies show" and hoping for the best?