Polygamy / Homosexuality

[random_havoc]

I was wondering about something. It seems to me that all of the exact same arguments used to say that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality can be used to support polygamy as well.

I was wondering if anyone who supports homosexuality but is against polygamy would mind sharing with me how one would go about logically arguing such a position.

Thanks.

P.s. I know this could quickly spiral into a debate/argument over homosexuality and, while I'm normally all for such a discussion, on this thread I'd prefer sticking to the topic posted if you guys don't mind, since it's something I've never heard discussed before.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The basic argument for marriage may be the same depending on who is arguing, my argument matches closely: It's none of the government's damn business who you diddle and who you consider part of your family.

I'm in favor of eliminating all "marriages" and replacing that sort of legal relationship with a domestic partnership. People obviously could still get married in a religious ceremony but all people would for legal purposes be "domestic partners".

You wanna live with your friend from High School and not have a sexual relationship but want to have all the other rights and privileges of a married couple? Domestic partner. Want to have 8? Domestic Partners... Why the hell not?

 

[AndThePickles]

I was wondering about something. It seems to me that all of the exact same arguments used to say that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality can be used to support polygamy as well.

For example?

 

[Hound55]

To me that's a simple question...

A truly "free" country doesn't legislate based on morality, it legislates on what will prevent society from descending into chaos.

And also sets up balanced punishment/rehabilitation programs that try to satisfy society's feelings that the crime and the issue behind the crime have been dealt with sufficiently (thus preventing vigilante justice which would constitute as "descending into chaos").

So polygamy is illegal for much the same reason as there are animal welfare laws...

Because people who feel deceived and are jilted by their partners face some kind of justice which cuts into the likelihood that the jilted lover may seek their own vengeance. Just as the owner of a pet might.

"Relationship deceit" would probably be a better, more encompassing law to look to enact but it'd be harder to prove and it would never get put through since it would require politicians, some of the greatest examples of the sleaziness, deceitfulness and just general scumbaggery of mankind, to vote for it...

 

[Logan's Runt]

To me that's a simple question...

A truly "free" country doesn't legislate based on morality, it legislates on what will prevent society from descending into chaos.

And also sets up balanced punishment/rehabilitation programs that try to satisfy society's feelings that the crime and the issue behind the crime have been dealt with sufficiently (thus preventing vigilante justice which would constitute as "descending into chaos").

So polygamy is illegal for much the same reason as there are animal welfare laws...

Because people who feel deceived and are jilted by their partners face some kind of justice which cuts into the likelihood that the jilted lover may seek their own vengeance. Just as the owner of a pet might.

"Relationship deceit" would probably be a better, more encompassing law to look to enact but it'd be harder to prove and it would never get put through since it would require politicians, some of the greatest examples of the sleaziness, deceitfulness and just general scumbaggery of mankind, to vote for it...

You're assuming that 'polygamy' always encompasses someone marrying multiple people without the knowledge of the individuals. Many polygamist families live together in a community with full disclosure of the practice, which I'd imagine is the version the OP was referring to.

You should also be careful of casual comparisons of polygamist wives to animals, it's tacky. A better comparison would have been 'It's much the same reason that laws against other types of domestic abuse are in place,' if you're alluding that a cheated-on spouse is damaged emotionally or deceived.

 

[Majic Walrus]

To me that's a simple question...

A truly "free" country doesn't legislate based on morality, it legislates on what will prevent society from descending into chaos.

And also sets up balanced punishment/rehabilitation programs that try to satisfy society's feelings that the crime and the issue behind the crime have been dealt with sufficiently (thus preventing vigilante justice which would constitute as "descending into chaos").

So polygamy is illegal for much the same reason as there are animal welfare laws...

Because people who feel deceived and are jilted by their partners face some kind of justice which cuts into the likelihood that the jilted lover may seek their own vengeance. Just as the owner of a pet might.

"Relationship deceit" would probably be a better, more encompassing law to look to enact but it'd be harder to prove and it would never get put through since it would require politicians, some of the greatest examples of the sleaziness, deceitfulness and just general scumbaggery of mankind, to vote for it...

Deceitfulness against a person can be resolved in civil court. In fact plenty of people go to civil court and lose and are required to pay damages to a person but end up never facing criminal charges or never being convicted.

 

[Hound55]

You're assuming that 'polygamy' always encompasses someone marrying multiple people without the knowledge of the individuals. Many polygamist families live together in a community with full disclosure of the practice, which I'd imagine is the version the OP was referring to.

I'M not. But I'm suggesting that society would...

You should also be careful of casual comparisons of polygamist wives to animals, it's tacky. A better comparison would have been 'It's much the same reason that laws against other types of domestic abuse are in place,' if you're alluding that a cheated-on spouse is damaged emotionally or deceived.

Apologies, animal welfare laws are just my stock standard response to any question which should be answered with "society sets laws to prevent the descent into chaos".

On reflection I should have put more thought into my choice of words.

In my own defence, not that its an acceptable excuse, It is almost 2:30 AM here...

 

[Hound55]

Deceitfulness against a person can be resolved in civil court. In fact plenty of people go to civil court and lose and are required to pay damages to a person but end up never facing criminal charges or never being convicted.

I'm aware that it can, but in spiteful situations its often not enough for some people to merely have the civil courts reimburse... often they feel the other has to be hurt/suffer.

Not the right attitude to have, and it will be punished if these acts of vigilance are carried out, but as a somewhat more preventative measure.

And with that... I need sleep...

 

[Hotwire]

With polygamy, you have an increased level of complication when dealing with divorce and death. In a home where a man has 3 wives, who get's what when he dies? Or, if he divorces one of his wives, what is she entitled to? You couldn't give her half, because that would be giving her a portion of the property the other two wives are entitled to. Keeping marriage between two people keeps it simpler.

But I have to say, I love Hound55's statement...

A truly "free" country doesn't legislate based on morality, it legislates on what will prevent society from descending into chaos.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Individuals should be able to enter into whatever type of relationship they wish without government or legal intervention. Nobody but these people are affected by their association physically or financially so it's nobody's business.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

My view on homosexuality and polygamy is the same.

If all parties involved are consenting, then I don't see what the problem is.

If a man (or woman) wants to have multiple spouses, and all of the spouses acknowledge and consent to the situation, then I don't see how it is wrong.

I do not believe that the government should interfere in your personal life.

And for the argument about how gay marriage and polygamy destroy the American family values system - MY family structure is strong enough that my family is not threatened by the actions of another party. I'm sorry if your family structure is weak and threatened by people who have no effect on it, but mine is strong. Other people's actions do no effect my family bond.

 

[Darthphere]

Polygamy is illegal not because they find it weird for a dude to have 6 wives. Polygamy is illegal because many of the times, they are arranged marriages with underage girls who were forced into those marriages against their will. This may not be the case now, but that's why polygamy is illegal. Now, is it right if it involves consenting adults? I really don't care.

 

[Paradoxium]

Polygamy as a government license contract can be refuted without any moral argument. As a contract: A unilaterally decreases the property right of the B through a yet uninvolved C. This is basically contract fraud. So even if the government gets out of dealing out marriage licenses (something I am behind), polygamy wouldn't be an issue.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Polygamy is illegal not because they find it weird for a dude to have 6 wives. Polygamy is illegal because many of the times, they are arranged marriages with underage girls who were forced into those marriages against their will. This may not be the case now, but that's why polygamy is illegal. Now, is it right if it involves consenting adults? I really don't care.

But you and the law is seems misses the point that this is between consenting adults. Child abuse, which underage marriage is, is another issue altogether but the whole thing is painted with one huge brush.

It's like outlawing rough sex because some rough sex is rape ... there are consenting adults who like it rough, and then there are those forced through one means or another which makes it a crime.

 

[Alex The Great]

I'm all for gay marrige, Polygamy is the one where really young kids get married at a young age, right? or is it the one with multiple wives.....hurm.

 

[Darthphere]

But you and the law is seems misses the point that this is between consenting adults. Child abuse, which underage marriage is, is another issue altogether but the whole thing is painted with one huge brush.

It's like outlawing rough sex because some rough sex is rape ... there are consenting adults who like it rough, and then there are those forced through one means or another which makes it a crime.

You didn't bother reading the last sentence in my post.

 

[Shifty]

The polygamists in Canada in British Columbia and those in the western United States believe they must have many wives and many children to get into heaven. The woman must marry the man if she wants to go to heaven. They must have sex to consummate the marriage. So you have these men who have 20-30 kids if not more over the course of there life. What do they do with the kids? They make sure they have a limited education and once the males reach a certain age they banish them from their community with a grade five or six education. They are competition for other women, so the young males have to go. Then the women are brainwashed into thinking they must marry this older man, have sex with him, share him with these other women, raise children with him or they won't be able to go to heaven.

Then in some communities in America incest is common along with birth defects.

So that's why I'm against polygamy. If you can have a marriage with three or four people and not bring a child into that house I'm fine with that.

Its when children are brought in and are taken advantage of. That's all they know is the community they live in. The old men hide behind their "religion". A gay couple that gets married and raises a child. Which child is going to have the better life? The sex slave, the homeless 13 year old with limited education or one who grows up in a loving home and attends school?

 

[ChickenScratch]

So you are saying that Polygamy = Child Abuse and that's why it should be illegal.

Limited education, brainwashing, incest are child abuse. Polygamy is a choice between consenting adults. Where a child is forced into a polygamous relationship, that is child abuse and that is the crime, but I don't see a problem with a polygamous relationship amongst consenting adults.

Again, it's hackney's writing of laws painting with a huge brush.

 

[Alex The Great]

Well, if they go to 20-30 kids and incest then nay, but if they don't go bat**** crazy about it then ok.....

 

[random_havoc]

Hmm, everyone that's posted is okay with polygamy. That's not what I expected. Didn't quite cover what I'd been hoping for, but very interesting to read.


Is there anyone here who is against polygamy but for homosexuality? If so, please share your arguments.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm aware that it can, but in spiteful situations its often not enough for some people to merely have the civil courts reimburse... often they feel the other has to be hurt/suffer.

Not the right attitude to have, and it will be punished if these acts of vigilance are carried out, but as a somewhat more preventative measure.

And with that... I need sleep...

I dig.

But you can't let vengeance dictate the law. The law goes beyond vengeance.

 

[Majic Walrus]

With polygamy, you have an increased level of complication when dealing with divorce and death. In a home where a man has 3 wives, who get's what when he dies? Or, if he divorces one of his wives, what is she entitled to? You couldn't give her half, because that would be giving her a portion of the property the other two wives are entitled to. Keeping marriage between two people keeps it simpler.

But I have to say, I love Hound55's statement...

No worries. Domestic partnerships say that all belongings go to the current domestic partners so in essence they share anything that the dying partner leave behind. In cases of divorces or someone wishing to leave the civil partnership there would still need to be a short legal proceeding, but this is not different from the current divorce scenario. Also pre-Partnership (prenups) will probably be a lot more common because there's not necessarily the issue of romantic disillusion with this system.

 

[Hound55]

I dig.

But you can't let vengeance dictate the law. The law goes beyond vengeance.

Vengeance was an oversimplication by a very tired man.

But its like a gauge for social upheaval.

The second last line should have said...

Not the right attitude to have, and it will be punished if these acts of vigilance are carried out. But as a somewhat more preventative measure which prevents it from coming to that.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I dig.

 

[BestGirl]

I'm not against polygamy for moral reasons, but there are some practical concerns. Take a look at this wiki article stating the rights of married people in the US. Would it be feasible for the government to pay $100,000 to the each of the, say, eight wives of any officer killed in the line of duty? What if a veteran had 20 wives? Would each one get an equal pension? If a man is incapacitated, which wife runs his affairs?