I’ve so far not heard a really good argument on this. I’d be really interested in opinions. Please be specific and defend your reasoning and don’t say It wouldn’t happen! I’m not curious about how often something might happen, just if it logically could be allowed to be marriage. Also, please nobody get into name calling, insults, etc.
Marriage is defined as a union of two people of opposite sexes. If the opposite part is arbitrary and subject to people’s feelings for each other. Why is the two portion sacrosanct? I always hear it just stated as a given that this is the case, but then it’s always dismissed and nobody backs up the argument. If you do successfully conclude how/why it’d be limited to two people, then how about two of age siblings? Would that be OK since unrelated is also arbitrary and subject to feelings?
I’m just thinking, if the argument is love and feelings for each other, instead of traditional definition, how does one deny the wishes of consenting adults to enter into any relationship they want and have it be considered marriage with all the benefits?
You sound pretty set, but I guess I’ll try.
Humans are biologically set up to live in family groups. You are right in saying that there is a minority who feel okay with their structure involving more than one other partner, but to be honest the majority of that minority are not healthy in those relationships. Not to say they’re crazy or wrong arbitrarily, but any study or professional opinion I’ve seen has said that most people who do this cause themselves and everyone else involved a world of hurt and drama.
As for siblings, it is a simple scientific fact that sibling mating leads to birth defects. Forbidding sibling unions to protect our society and the next generation biologically is just as valid as forbidding polygamy as a safeguard against abuse and self-harm. And even in those areas the law doesn’t forbid the relationship itself, because some people have genuine love for each other. It just forbids marriage, because as a society we want to be as healthy and stable as possible.
On the other hand, people in same-sex relationships seeking marriage have exactly the same rates of abuse as straight couples, and do not damage their children in any way by their orientation, unless you believe that tolerance of same-sex couples is some kind of damage.
The issue should not be tradition, because tradition for its own sake makes no sense. The issue should be preserving and pursuing the pure logic that defines a stable society. Wow, I did not think this would be so long. Thank you for reading this if you made it to the end, lol.
I am a bit confused, so please bear with me (its after 2 am as I am writing this).
How is polygamy and gay marriage related? Polygamy, by definition is the union of one man with more than one wife. Gay marriage is (in theory) the union of two (AND ONLY TWO) consenting adults, albeit the same sex.
If marriage is morally and legally defined as the union of two people (for sake of argument, I will not specify traditional or gay marriage at this point: but when I do refer to a moral definition, I mean that marriage is between an unspecified couple and not three or more individuals) doesn’t that imply that a couple must have love and feelings for each other (unless, possibly, it is an arranged marriage). Otherwise, why would a couple marry in the first place. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems pretty clear that marriage is defined as the union of two people (again, I am taking care as to not specify traditional or gay marriage). So, unless you can refute that argument, it would only seem fair that if a gay couple were to enter into the same life-long commitment to their partner as a husband and wife in a traditional marriage, shouldn’t they be treated as equals in at least some respects?
I am not sure what you meant when you said ":…then how about two of age siblings?":. Can you please clarify– this sentence doesn’t seem to make grammatical sense as written. You also mentioned ":…’unrelated’ is also arbitrary…:.": Unrelated to what? Do you mean that two individuals who wed are not supposed to be related (by the way, this would be a moot point since relatives cannot legally marry anyway, with very few exceptions). So if you could clarify some of these points, I would be more than happy to continue this conversation.
I simply do not understand in what way you can compare the two. Sorry to have ":the intellectual equivalent of a 5 year old":, but your total void of logic in comparing two different situations gives you the low level of intelligence – not only that, but great ignorance.
The void of logic in your argument (and failure to back up your own argument, yet at the same time insulting those of others) makes it very difficult to build up an appropriate argument, mainly because your own doesn’t make any sense. You tell me how it is that they ARE the same, and maybe you yourself will appear somewhat intelligent.
Gay marriage would work in much the same way as a modern-day marriage, except for the obvious fact that it will be between two men or two women. The civil responsibilities will remain intact – ie financially, for taxation purposes, when it comes to children, divorce, etc.
Polygamy, on the other hand, would require a complete overhaul of the marriage system.How would custody work? Taxation? When it came to joint bank accounts between partners, this means that any one person could have numerous accounts – and that leaves a lot of doors open for fraud. When it comes to divorce, how would it be conducted to make sure that each party, including all of the other wives/husbands, was left with enough property/finance etc to live?
You argument lacks logic, completely.
Why can’t it just be rewarded as between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman or just say two people. Also, if two people of the opposite sex get married they only want each other. They have to go through a world of people hating them to be together. They truly love each other and wouldn’t want to be married to more than one person. Heterosexuals on the other hand maybe. They’re the one’s you have to watch out for.
Also thats really the same homophobic argument that people make when they say next people could marry animals. The fact is is that the ban on polygamy is constitutional. Polygamy is banned FOR EVERYONE. Marriage to one person is band ONLY FOR HOMOSEXUALS. A law against one group of targeted people is called a bill of attainer. Bills of attainer are deemed unconstitutional by the constitution.
If your argument is that changing the definition of marriage will lead to other changes including polygamy, then I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the definition of marriage has already undergone several changes over its time. Most recently in 1996 when DOMA passed, effectively CHANGING the language of marriage (at least according to the federal government) to state: ":The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.": Before this, Hawaii was considering legalizing same-sex marriage, as the then current federal definition of marriage could be interpreted to allow for same-sex marriages as well. So they CHANGED the definition of marriage to ensure homosexuals couldn’t participate. By your own argument, this action must have supported polygamy. Also, I find it highly hypocritical that the very same people responsible for the travesty that is DOMA are now arguing that it’s too dangerous to change the definition of marriage. No shame. True, allowing any change to the traditional definition of marriage no doubt makes way for others to do the same thing in the future. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Values change over time, and our laws need to be given leave to evolve accordingly.
As for gay marriage and polygamy, the main difference is that the gay marriage issue is about equality, nothing more. It’s about correcting a glaring injustice in what is already existing law. For granting one set of rights to one group of people, and another, lesser, set of rights to another group, has and will always be inequality. Sure, there may be some grounds on which you could argue for changing the numbers involved in a marriage, but since everyone (gay, straight, male, female) must adhere to the same two-person marriage definition, equality is not one of them. Therefore, those supporting polygamy could only benefit from the gay marriage argument if one group of people were allowed to have multiple spouses while the other group were limited to a two-person traditional marriage, thus creating another equality gap. Until this occurs, it’s a moot point.
EDIT: You said: ":The arguments for injustice and such could easily be made for polygamists, thus my question of why sexes are flexible, but numbers set in stone.":
If you’d read my answer, you’d see that my argument was that neither should be set in stone. ":True, allowing any change to the traditional definition of marriage no doubt makes way for others to do the same thing in the future. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Values change over time, and our laws need to be given leave to evolve accordingly.": Right now, it’s our values regarding homosexuality that are changing. If the time comes for us to reevaluate the worth of polygamy, then so be it. I also used the example of DOMA to illustrate how the definition of marriage has already been changed. I can only assume you opposed DOMA too, for the same reasons you are opposing gay marriage.
But I do support polygamy in all of its facets so long as it takes place between knowing and consenting adults who have in no way been pressured into it.
I’d like to add that Polygamy is NOT marriage between a man and multiple women.
Polygamy : A marriage between 3 or more people of any gender. This can be three woman. 4 men and 2 women. Any combination.
Polygyny: A marriage between one man and multiple women.
Polyandry: A marriage between one woman and multiple men
You asked: How do you logically support gay marriage without supporting polygamy?
Answer: By using my intellect, particularly in realizing immediately that your hypothesis is not logically constructed.
Since the crux of your question is the sentence, ":Why is the ‘two’ portion sacrosanct?": your preliminary question should be, ":How do you logically support marriage without supporting polygamy?": — note the lack of the adjective ":gay,": since you’re obviously asking about why ANY married people are limiting themselves to just each other.
This is how I see it. As long as the people in the polygamist relationships aren’t hurting anyone, as long as the marriage is between consenting adults, and as long as they are of legal age, I don’t see a problem. Let them live how they want to live. I don’t believe they all can be ":in love": with one another at the same time though. I find that impossible. It’s not possible to be in love with more than one person at a time. But if they want to Marry more than one person and live together, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s not my cup of tea personally, but if that’s how they want to live, let them.
Hmmm this is an interesting argument. i support gay marriage 100%
I think that the law of marriage is an old law and should be updated. men and men and women and women have been making love for centuries (like even in the Bible it talks about gay people)
and I think people just need to accept gay/lesbian marriage as an equal to hetero marriage
i dont see alot of people fighting for the right of incest, or polygamy….
First of all, you can not relate those two issues, they are not the same. The only way they are related is by the majority of people who look down upon gay marriage/polygamy because it’s not ":traditional":. There’s your adult answer you big cheese: TRADITION.
Tradition sucks. I want the benefits of marriage!