The sacred institution of marriage...

[BVS]

currently do not fall under what many consider to be a traditional form of marriage,

I could honestly care less about what most consider traditional form.

There is no logic to deny incestual marriages, except for reproduction issues which you've already mentioned. For the most part it's just an ick factor. The reason I stressed consenting is that most existing incestual relationships are not 100% consentual.

Everyone agrees that you need to have consenting adults for it to be considered a marriage. This means you could have 5 different groups of people, of which only one would fit under what is regarded as the traditional form of marriage. Each of the 5 could be in a polygamous form as well.

No, polygamy does not fall into this category for it's impossible to have 100% consent. If anyone's watched Big Love on HBO it really does a great job showing the circumstances that aren't consentual within a polygamous relationship. It portrays the family very well, it shows how they try to make everything as fair as possible, but it's never truly consentual.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I could honestly care less about what most consider traditional form.

There is no logic to deny incestual marriages, except for reproduction issues which you've already mentioned. For the most part it's just an ick factor. The reason I stressed consenting is that most existing incestual relationships are not 100% consentual.




No, polygamy does not fall into this category for it's impossible to have 100% consent. If anyone's watched Big Love on HBO it really does a great job showing the circumstances that aren't consentual within a polygamous relationship. It portrays the family very well, it shows how they try to make everything as fair as possible, but it's never truly consentual.

Well, you could say that there are marriages between adult Hetero people that are not fully consentual either. If your an adult and you consent to enter into a relationship that is a polygamous one, you always have the option to leave the relationship if you change your mind. Were talking about polygamy in the general sense, simply a marriage between 3 or more people, not the controlled families that you find in Utah.

 

[anitram]

Why don't we just outlaw marriage for everyone then?

If we use your line of logic, any kind of marriage then takes us on the path of "who else will want to join in" so I say ban it alltogether.

I'm kind of sick of married people benefitting from the tax man and getting pots and pans for their wedding. Nobody bought me linen and a toaster when I decided to stay single.

Down with marriage!

 

[BVS]

Well, you could say that there are marriages between adult Hetero people that are not fully consentual either.

Yes, but like you're incest analogies there are also couples who are not related and will still reproduce with birth defects. Like those that are predispositioned to birth defects polygamy is predispositioned towards submission.

Were talking about polygamy in the general sense, simply a marriage between 3 or more people,

Consent implies equality not just agreement. There is no equality in a relationship where the woman is completely, by nature, submissive to the man's whim. Let's say all three wives want the same thing at the same time but he can only give to one, he chooses which one therefore it's always by his choice.

 

[toscano]

And that's about the dumbest "reasoning" I've ever heard.

No, it's 100% the truth. Whether YOU consider it dumb really matters not one whit. Fact is, it's true, joe schmo is NOT motivated to go get the law changed. That does NOT make everyone who doesn't go get the law changed a bigot in my eyes, maybe it does in yours. Whatever.

Would this have been an accptable answer to tell a black person why they can't sit in the front of the bus?

No, but only because they are, get this, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES !

I could have guessed this...

LOL! (at, not with)

It shouldn't be a campaign issue. It should be legalized and then we can move on with real issues.

hey Einstein, how do laws get changed ? Here's a clue, if the bulk of voters cared enough to WANT it changed, you can be sure the politicians who have the power to get it changed would try a little harder to do so.

It would appear that for most, the "real issues" come first, what a concept....

 

[toscano]

I'm kind of sick of married people benefitting from the tax man and getting pots and pans for their wedding. Nobody bought me linen and a toaster when I decided to stay single.

But you knew about the pots and pans and "married filing jointly" when you decided to stay single, right ?

 

[BVS]

No, but only because they are, get this, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES !

Really? Entirely different? One was denied privelages due to skin color, and one is denied privelages due to sexuality. Yeah you're right it sounds completely different.

LOL! (at, not with)

Well it was obvious. It's easy to be aloof when you've never been discriminated against by law.

hey Einstein, how do laws get changed ? Here's a clue, if the bulk of voters cared enough to WANT it changed, you can be sure the politicians who have the power to get it changed would try a little harder to do so.

It would appear that for most, the "real issues" come first, what a concept....

What's you're problem? I just said "it shouldn't be" as in, if this were a perfect world we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

You are familiar with that type of thinking aren't you?

 

[toscano]

Really? Entirely different? One was denied privelages due to skin color, and one is denied privelages due to sexuality. Yeah you're right it's completely different.

The fact that entire movements incorporating citizens of all walks of life sprung up and fought to get one issue changed makes it an entirely different issue. One, the populus at large cared about, the other, not. i.e, Different. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it is.

Well it was obvious. It's easy to be aloof when you've never been discriminated against by law.

It's not amatter of aloofness to discrimination, not that you have any idea what discrimination I have or have not been subject to, it's amatter of indifferent due to priorities in life. Legalize, don't legalize it; Either way, spend the energy to fix Iraq, Afghanistan, Healthcare, the Economy, Social Security and balance the Budget first

Can I roll eyes now too ?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why is it that in every single gay marriage thread someone has to bring up incest and polygamy as being a result of legalizing gay marriage and then go on to assure us that they aren't really against gay marriage, they're "just asking?"

What a load of crap disgiused as "thought."

Write the law describing gay marriage just like the law describing straight marriage is written.


There hasn't been any logical reason in this thread or any other to deny homosexuals the right to marry. NOT ONE REASON.

Hey, I brought up polygamy and I support both gay marriage and polygamy, I support gay polygamy too.

 

[BVS]

The fact that entire movements incorporating citizens of all walks of life sprung up and fought to get one issue changed makes it an entirely different issue. One, the populus at large cared about, the other, not. i.e, Different. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it is.

Yes and how long was the populus and conservative politicians on the wrong side of history? So yeah the "entirely different" thing keeps losing it's meaning doesn't it?

It's not amatter of aloofness to discrimination, not that you have any idea what discrimination I have or have not been subject to, it's amatter of indifferent due to priorities in life.

No I have no idea what discrimination you're dealt with, but that's not what I said. I said discrimination by law.

And yes it is a matter of aloofness. Equality IS a priority.

Legalize, don't legalize it; Either way, spend the energy to fix Iraq, Afghanistan, Healthcare, the Economy, Social Security and balance the Budget first

Yeah I'm sure the energy spent to change the law will really take time out of all these things. It's the time debating which is rediculous.

And the Republicans need an issue like this so that people are distracted away from the fact that they can't fix any of these things.

Can I roll eyes now too ?

When I give you something roll worthy, roll away.

 

[anitram]

But you knew about the pots and pans and "married filing jointly" when you decided to stay single, right ?

So?

Rosa Parks knew she wasn't allowed at the front of the bus when she decided to sit there, right?

*Not equating the two, but pointing out that times and laws change and evolve. Too bad half the country is regressing socially into some kind of medieval bigotry.

 

[toscano]

So?

So you looked at the rules, decided to stay single, but you want to take everyone else's rights to linens and tax benefits away because YOU'RE not participating ? What WOULD Pottery Barn do ?

Too bad half the country is regressing socially into some kind of medieval bigotry.

Actually, since gay marriage was illegal before and is still illegal, how is that a regression ?

And everyone who's not out there campaigning for legalization of gay marriage is a "medieval bigot" ?

 

[melon]

I love Canada. Gay marriage is legal, and the sky hasn't fallen. And, yes, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are all illegal.

It's really funny how Americans expend so much energy trying to be afraid of something.

Melon

 

[anitram]

So you looked at the rules, decided to stay single, but you want to take everyone else's rights to linens and tax benefits away because YOU'RE not participating ? What WOULD Pottery Barn do ?

Jesus, Joseph and Mary you took my post seriously.

And everyone who's not out there campaigning for legalization of gay marriage is a "medieval bigot" ?

Where did anyone say you need to campaign for it?

If you are against full rights for the citizens of your nation who happen to be gay, yes I consider that to be bigotry. Nobody is equal until everybody is equal.

This is a losing issue for people against it. Modernity and time are working against you and in 50 or a hundred years, kids will be wondering who these bigots are who wanted to restrict rights to a good proportion of the population. This is a generational issue, and with every new generation, the numbers of those against it will decrease steadily. The right can screech hysterically about it now, but they are on the wrong side of this issue longterm.

Just like people were wrong about interracial marriage, just like they were wrong about women not having the right to vote, just like they were wrong about blacks going to separate schools.

Time is on the side of equality, it is only too bad that we can't extend equality to everyone now. As a straight woman, I feel badly that I am more equal than some members of this forum. It's actually embarrassing.

 

[toscano]

Yes and how long was the populus and conservative politicians on the wrong side of history? So yeah the "entirely different" thing keeps losing it's meaning doesn't it?

Second question , no.
First question, nice interjection of 'conservative politicians' (can't have an FYM thread without them in it), as for the general populus, who's counting ? and the number depends on which side of a given particular fence you'd be on.

Disingenious at best, not even a 'nice try'.

No I have no idea what discrimination you're dealt with, but that's not what I said. I said discrimination by law.

Same answer. You still don't know.

And yes it is a matter of aloofness. Equality IS a priority.

Clearly legalization of gay marriage is NOT a priority for most. Bush wouldn't be in power if it was.

And the Republicans need an issue like this so that people are distracted away from the fact that they can't fix any of these things.

A-ha, you are starting to learn young Grasshoppa.......but you still have much to learn........because you, like the inept Democratic party, will allow the Republicans to build the stage and set the rules, even when you apparently recognize what they are doing.

Want to enact gay marriage legislation ? Take power. How to take it ? Show the voting populus you care about what they care about the most and that you can help them. My whole point here has been that the voters don't want a debate on gay marriage, they want to know how you can help them. If you gain their trust, you gain control of government. If you gain control of government you can then pass other legislation

Play the Reps game and you will lose. Again.

Only the Dems could be so inept as to lose an election to an idiot incumbent fighting an unpopular war in a down economy.

 

[toscano]

Jesus, Joseph and Mary you took my post seriously.

As witnessed by my concern for the welfare of Pottery Barn ?!!?!!

LOL!!!

 

[martha]

My God, there's a lot of excuses in this thread for allowing intolerance and inequality to run rampant.

1. Won't somebody think of the uncles and nephews!
2. Won't somebody think of the polygamists!
3. No body else gives enough of a shit, so I don't have to!
4. (My personal fave) It doesn't affect me, so I don't care!

When I was at the Central High museum in Little Rock, I was looking at the faces of the white women, contorted in hate because some black teenagers wanted to go to school. I wondered where they were, if anyone had collected their stories, or were they simply too embarrassed to tell people that those faces were theirs? A decade or two from now, I hope to be wondering the same thing about the people who now stand outside courthouses, screaming Biblical obscenities at people who just want to be married.

 

[BVS]

First question, nice interjection of 'conservative politicians' (can't have an FYM thread without them in it), as for the general populus, who's counting ? and the number depends on which side of a given particular fence you'd be on.

Disingenious at best, not even a 'nice try'.

What? Nice avoidance of the issue.

Same answer. You still don't know.

Really, how many laws hold back the white straight male? I'd like to know.

Clearly legalization of gay marriage is NOT a priority for most. Bush wouldn't be in power if it was.

You're not getting it, I know equality is not a priority for most. That's exactly why Bush is in the office. The bigot vote helped him quite a bit.

But just like the issue you avoided earlier. Ending segregation wasn't a priority for most for a long while as well.

A-ha, you are starting to learn young Grasshoppa.......but you still have much to learn........because you, like the inept Democratic party, will allow the Republicans to build the stage and set the rules, even when you apparently recognize what they are doing.

Want to enact gay marriage legislation ? Take power. How to take it ? Show the voting populus you care about what they care about the most and that you can help them. My whole point here has been that the voters don't want a debate on gay marriage, they want to know how you can help them. If you gain their trust, you gain control of government. If you gain control of government you can then pass other legislation

Play the Reps game and you will lose. Again.

Only the Dems could be so inept as to lose an election to an idiot incumbent fighting an unpopular war in a down economy.

And all of this proves my point. We have a lot of bigots in this country. But just like women's right, segregation, and so many other social issues. History will prove these people to be on the wrong side, and their grandchildren can shake their heads in shame.

 

[martha]

You would expain it's illegal.....

What a wonderful legacy you're preparing for your grandchildren.


"Yes, it was illegal, and remained so, because people like me thought it was a low priority to work to end intolerance and inequality because we thought there were bigger issues to deal with."

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Yes, but like you're incest analogies there are also couples who are not related and will still reproduce with birth defects. Like those that are predispositioned to birth defects polygamy is predispositioned towards submission.



Consent implies equality not just agreement. There is no equality in a relationship where the woman is completely, by nature, submissive to the man's whim. Let's say all three wives want the same thing at the same time but he can only give to one, he chooses which one therefore it's always by his choice.

Polygamy is marriage between 3 or more people. Its not necessarily what you see on HBO about the situation in Utah.

What would you say about a polygamous marriage of 4 women? Would you say there is no equality there?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Consent implies equality not just agreement. There is no equality in a relationship where the woman is completely, by nature, submissive to the man's whim. Let's say all three wives want the same thing at the same time but he can only give to one, he chooses which one therefore it's always by his choice.

Consent doesn't imply equality, you can have dominant and submissive partners electing to be in relationships, this argument as one against polygamy is disengenous as the involved parties are electing to be part of this and their role within the relationship.

The argument extends onto choice for sex, which treads into very nasty territory as it is essentially saying that the virtue of choice by the dominant partner that denies at least one of the other partner is what makes the relationship uneven and in some manner violates the principle of consent, what if a wife doesn't want to have sex with her husband? is that violating a principle of equality in the same way, is her denying a partner not exerting a similar form of dominance?

 

[BVS]

Polygamy is marriage between 3 or more people. Its not necessarily what you see on HBO about the situation in Utah.

I realize that. I also know the show is fiction.

I was using it as an example. I've done a lot of research on the subject, wrote a paper on it in college.

What would you say about a polygamous marriage of 4 women? Would you say there is no equality there?

Still doesn't work, for all the same reasons.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I love Canada. Gay marriage is legal, and the sky hasn't fallen. And, yes, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are all illegal.

It's really funny how Americans expend so much energy trying to be afraid of something.

Melon

But Gay marriage has not always been legal in Canada. Bestiality will never be legal because the beast can't give consent. Gay incest and polygamy may be illegal now, but those issues could come up in the future.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I realize that. I also know the show is fiction.

I was using it as an example. I've done a lot of research on the subject, wrote a paper on it in college.

Still doesn't work, for all the same reasons.

Why should they be prevented from entering into these arrangements and having the legal recognition for their unorthodox relationships?

If we justify gay marriage on the basis of equal treatment and recognition for citizens then how can we draw an illegal border on polygamy between consenting parties.

The sexual activity is not illegal in itself, the living arrangement is not illegal so why should the legal recognition be illegal?

 

[BVS]

Gay incest and polygamy may be illegal now, but those issues could come up in the future.

This is the part you don't get. Hetero incest and polygamy were already issues before gay marriage, IT'S NOT A CAUSE.

 

[melon]

But Gay marriage has not always been legal in Canada.

And marrying for love didn't really occur until the 19th century. Your point?

Gay incest and polygamy may be illegal now, but those issues could come up in the future.

Considering that heterosexual incest and heterosexual polygamy are equally illegal, there isn't much footing to do so. All successful court activity has revolved around the notion of "equality," not "special rights," contrary to the rhetoric one hears from the far right.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Why should they be prevented from entering into these arrangements and having the legal recognition for their unorthodox relationships?

If we justify gay marriage on the basis of equal treatment and recognition for citizens then how can we draw an illegal border on polygamy between consenting parties.

Because polygamy by nature is predisposed to creating submissive and one sided relationships that can't be foreseen sometimes.

Let's say the marriage starts with two people a third comes in a few years later but the second wife divorces after a year. Second wife gets awarded a nice sum in the divorce proceedings and ends up taking assets belonging to the first wife. To me I have a hard time saying this is true consent when someone can get punished for something they have no control over.

The sexual activity is not illegal in itself, the living arrangement is not illegal so why should the legal recognition be illegal?

Now the legal recognition brings in a whole new nightmare because of the issues with assets, life insurance policies, finance etc when death or divorce takes place.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

This is the part you don't get. Hetero incest and polygamy were already issues before gay marriage, IT'S NOT A CAUSE.

Not a cause for what?

Hetero incest is obviously always going to be illegal because of the birth defects of potential offspring. As for polygamy, just because it became and issue and the law considers it to be illegal now, does not mean a society in the future could make a different decision on the issue.

Gay marriage and its legalization is new in most countries. I don't know what the law says about Gay adult incest in Canada or if the issue has come up and been ruled on.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because polygamy by nature is predisposed to creating submissive and one sided relationships that can't be foreseen sometimes.

Let's say the marriage starts with two people a third comes in a few years later but the second wife divorces after a year. Second wife gets awarded a nice sum in the divorce proceedings and ends up taking assets belonging to the first wife. To me I have a hard time saying this is true consent when someone can get punished for something they have no control over.

Wouldn't that be dependent on the type of marriage contract, if we were to treat polygamy between one man and two wives as the man being part of two independent marriages rather than three parties involved in a single marriage then the assets could certainly be taken away from the first wife without her control.

Now the legal recognition brings in a whole new nightmare because of the issues with assets, life insurance policies, finance etc when death or divorce takes place.

It does bring about a slew of new issues but they would not be insurmountable and in themselves they do not seem cause to say that polygamous marriage should be illegal, perhaps it would be a lot better for the state to get our of the marriage game altogether.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not a cause for what?

Hetero incest is obviously always going to be illegal because of the birth defects of potential offspring. As for polygamy, just because it became and issue and the law considers it to be illegal now, does not mean a society in the future could make a different decision on the issue.

Gay marriage and its legalization is new in most countries. I don't know what the law says about Gay adult incest in Canada or if the issue has come up and been ruled on.

It is such an insanely minute issue though, can you name any consentual gay incestuous partners that want to get married? It is taking the most extreme minority of minorities and using something so perverse to hold up progress.