• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group Marriage on the Way?

Wrangor said:
Sex with goats seems to be a different rule, so I don't think that would apply here. If you love someone (a person) you should be able to marry him/her/them. I don't see how homosexuality is any different than polygamy in that regard. I said this a year ago and got ripped for that line of logic. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Looking back, your point did generate some intelligent responses that belong in this thread:

Les Grossman said:
I've thought about this a lot, and to me here is the legitimate argument behind allowing gay marriage and disallowing polygamy and incest.

Let's start off with the base assumption that everyone has the right to be married and the government should not infringe on that right. Then, as with every right we have in this country, there can be exceptions based on legitimate government interests. In the case of incest, it's easy. Research has clearly shown that it's dangerous for offspring. Next, comes polygamy. First, is the complicating tax and estate issues with this. But, more importantly, is anyone who wants to be in a polygamous relationship is not denied the right to be married. Granted, they cant be married to more than one person at the same time...but, they can still be married.

With the homosexual exception, there is no legitimate government interest (as is the case with incest) and they cannot be married (as is the case with polygamy). So, to me, those are the two glaring differences and how the court can easily draw a distinction between them.
Click to expand...

Deacon923 said:
Incest is obvious. Polygamy is a little harder. In addition to your points which I agree with, generally speaking throughout human history the institution of polygamy has been strongly associated with women being treated as property, abused, and deprived of equal rights. See, e.g., Warren Jeffs. There may be some hippy love ins out there where one dude and his three women are living in perfect equality and love. The far more common scenario throughout human history has been a situation where the leaders of a tribe/religion/community treat women as property, keep them uneducated and subservient, the chiefs/pastors/leaders have access to more women, and lower men on the totem pole don't get to marry anybody. The women in the situation may be brainwashed or socialized into thinking they are making a free choice to stay, but in fact the whole structure is built to keep them in their place. So, given this history, it is not a stretch to say there is a legitimate government interest in prohibiting polygamy.
Click to expand...

KickballDeac said:
I see the polygamy/gay marriage distinction like this: the government has chosen to incentivize marriage between two people in the form of tax advantages and a litany of other benefits we all know about. It didn't have to--I would hope your love for your spouse is not dependent on claiming a tax break or the label of 'government recognition' (love is love, after all!)--but Mr. Government happened to be feeling magnanimous, and studies show marriage is good for society, so whatever, yay. But the government did so only for two people. It could have been three, it could have been zero, but it's two. Only two people get to apply for this special government recognition at a time; it's a limit like any other limit to a government benefit. For example, the first-time home buyer credit was capped at $8,000 (in 2009, on one home, your first); charitable deductions have a limit; and marriage benefits are extended only to two people. (I know this analogy isn't perfect but I'm simplifying and speaking broadly)

Out of this framework the argument for gay marriage becomes more of an equal protection under the law type of argument. Why discriminate against gay couples if you wouldn't discriminate against, say, left-handed couples? Religious views should have no bearing in a secular government, which is what ours is.

But this framework doesn't provide an argument for government recognition of polygamous marriages, in a similar way to how you can't buy two first homes. But hey, a church can marry whomever it wants.

Again, I'm speaking in terms of broad concepts (lawyers and constitutional scholars can feel free to tear me apart--I'd appreciate the chance to learn something new), but that's how I see a legitimate distinction between gay marriage and polygamy, in addition to valid points by Les and 923.
Click to expand...
 
Wrangor said:
I agree there are practical issues to work out, but the rule upon which we have based marriage is: "who do you love", and the notion that we cannot tell someone they can't marry who they love. If that is the rule, then you must abide by it. You can't pick and choose what forms of the rule you feel comfortable with.

Sex with goats seems to be a different rule, so I don't think that would apply here. If you love someone (a person) you should be able to marry him/her/them. I don't see how homosexuality is any different than polygamy in that regard. I said this a year ago and got ripped for that line of logic. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Except a lot of people don't think that's the rule. Taking from the quotes from Kickball and Les that Avalon quoted and my own feelings, think the rule is something more like "you can marry one person and unless there is a legitimate government interest in the government preventing you from marrying the one person you choose, it is an equal protection violation for the government to discriminate."
 
Wrangor said:
I agree there are practical issues to work out, but the rule upon which we have based marriage is: "who do you love", and the notion that we cannot tell someone they can't marry who they love. If that is the rule, then you must abide by it. You can't pick and choose what forms of the rule you feel comfortable with.

Sex with goats seems to be a different rule, so I don't think that would apply here. If you love someone (a person) you should be able to marry him/her/them. I don't see how homosexuality is any different than polygamy in that regard. I said this a year ago and got ripped for that line of logic. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure my thoughts on the matter have been consistent.
 
sailordeac said:
Maybe the question ought to be: why should "who do you love" be granted privileged status and benefits?
Click to expand...

As in marriage in general, regardless of circumstance? I agree with you. I think the notion of government subsidizing marriage is antiquated, problematic, and unnecessary.
 
A committed marriage provides the most stable opportunity to raise the next generation of Americans. Better adapted and educated youth make better educated and adapted adults who in turn contribute to society, marry, and raise their own better adapted, educated children.

Yeah, don't see why we want to encourage that when everyone could take on the task of raising children on their own (which has proven to be much much easier....)


This thread is a great example of the liberal bias of these boards. Two dudes want to marry each other? You are a bigot if you tell them they can't love each other. However we are allowed to condescend against a dude and two women wanting to marry each other. Hypocrisy at its finest. Suddenly marriage is the summation if it's tax benefits.

Which is it? Is marriage a right between consenting adults or is it am endowment of tax benefits. Because if marriage is defined by tax benefits then it is not bigotry to oppose gay marriage. It is simply a policy difference.
 
There is no liberal bias on these boards. Please make a note.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
Where are all these people you see condescending against you for suggesting that we recognize polygamy? The only thing I see are people discussing the logistical challenges, and the history of polygamy bring used to oppress women. And some of those dreaded liberals actually agreeing with you. The horror! How dare they!
 
Between this whole "you liberals are all hypocrites" (for kind of agreeing with me and discussing it in a rational manner) and "I said this a year ago and got blasted for it" (which avalon showed wasn't really true), methinks you have a little bit of a martyr complex.
 
I'm gonna group marry the Top Cats.

laura6.jpg


tempSS_TopCat_Intros--nfl_mezz_1280_1024.jpg
 
Wrangor said:
We have established the current rule for judging marriages. There is no difference in homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage. According to the cultural rule we are abiding by "you can't tell someone they can't marry who they love".


It is a completely hypocritical argument to support gay marriage and oppose polygamous marriage. Who are you to tell a man and two women that they can get married? What right do we have to deny them their happiness?
Click to expand...

This was your first post on this thread Wrangor.

Up to this point, nobody had said anything remotely close to supporting gay marriage and opposing polygamous marriage except for 923 who prefaced his comments by saying "just to argue the other side for the sake of it..."

Nobody attacked you for anything and you got offended. Funny how that works. In fact nobody on this thread said what you claimed they said. You just built up a strawman and attacked it. JHMD would be proud though.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
This was your first post on this thread Wrangor.

Up to this point, nobody had said anything remotely close to supporting gay marriage and opposing polygamous marriage except for 923 who prefaced his comments by saying "just to argue the other side for the sake of it..."

Nobody attacked you for anything and you got offended. Funny how that works. In fact nobody on this thread said what you claimed they said. You just built up a strawman and attacked it. JHMD would be proud though.
Click to expand...

We had this thread about a year ago and the arguments were pretty well stated that it was silly to compare polygamy and homosexuality. I transferred my energy from the previous discussions.
 
It is beyond silly to try to compare polygamy to homosexuality. Why would anyone ever do it? What does being gay have to do with polygamy?
 
Wrangor said:
A committed marriage provides the most stable opportunity to raise the next generation of Americans. Better adapted and educated youth make better educated and adapted adults who in turn contribute to society, marry, and raise their own better adapted, educated children.

Yeah, don't see why we want to encourage that when everyone could take on the task of raising children on their own (which has proven to be much much easier....)


This thread is a great example of the liberal bias of these boards. Two dudes want to marry each other? You are a bigot if you tell them they can't love each other. However we are allowed to condescend against a dude and two women wanting to marry each other. Hypocrisy at its finest. Suddenly marriage is the summation if it's tax benefits.

Which is it? Is marriage a right between consenting adults or is it am endowment of tax benefits. Because if marriage is defined by tax benefits then it is not bigotry to oppose gay marriage. It is simply a policy difference.
Click to expand...

I'm going to need examples of this claim?
 
The reality is Wrangor does not believe in the Golden Rule. He wants to deny gay people the right to be married, but would not want gay people to be able to veto his marrying a woman.
 
RJKarl said:
The reality is Wrangor does not believe in the Golden Rule. He wants to deny gay people the right to be married, but would not want gay people to be able to veto his marrying a woman.
Click to expand...

Um, just to be fair, I believe Wrangor's belief is that gay marriage is wrong but should be legal (and is in that way consistent with his belief about polygamy here stated).

If I've mischaracterized either his belief or his posting of that belief, I'm sorry
 
Does he believe polygamy should be legal?

P.S. I think it's inhumane and disgraceful to equate gays loving each other with polygamy, incest or beatiality.
 
Last edited:
This topic brings out some epic straw men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top