• 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?

Yeah, I argued that this was next when gay marriage was becoming more and more prevalent (and received a heavy dose of negrep if I recall....a lot of 'there is no slippery slope' arguments). I don't see the difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. If the rule is whether there are consenting adults, then that should be the rule. It shouldn't matter how many people. The irony of all this is that the major impact will be felt in the tax code because as 923 and others have illustrated there are massive loopholes and complications waiting to be exposed with an open marriage system. Quite simply you are going to almost have to remove marriage from the tax code. Since our individual tax code is written on the foundation of marriage and children it will be interesting to see how it develops. A 'flatter' tax will probably make a whole lot more sense in the future. Less deducts, less initial taxes. But there is really no stopping this tidal wave. If a gay couple can be married, then there is no reason to limit anyone else as long as they are adult and consenting. Incest at some point will be on the table as well. Clearly reproduction is not a litmus test for marriage so there is no reason to withhold marriage from a brother and sister who aren't going to have children. They can adopt just like Mike and Mike can adopt. Father/son marriage? It will all be legal, because there is really no argument against it, other than that kind of marriage just happens to be the kind you are uncomfortable with. Its a brave new world I guess.
 
Wrangor said:
Yeah, I argued that this was next when gay marriage was becoming more and more prevalent (and received a heavy dose of negrep if I recall....a lot of 'there is no slippery slope' arguments). I don't see the difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. If the rule is whether there are consenting adults, then that should be the rule. It shouldn't matter how many people. The irony of all this is that the major impact will be felt in the tax code because as 923 and others have illustrated there are massive loopholes and complications waiting to be exposed with an open marriage system. Quite simply you are going to almost have to remove marriage from the tax code. Since our individual tax code is written on the foundation of marriage and children it will be interesting to see how it develops. A 'flatter' tax will probably make a whole lot more sense in the future. Less deducts, less initial taxes. But there is really no stopping this tidal wave. If a gay couple can be married, then there is no reason to limit anyone else as long as they are adult and consenting. Incest at some point will be on the table as well. Clearly reproduction is not a litmus test for marriage so there is no reason to withhold marriage from a brother and sister who aren't going to have children. They can adopt just like Mike and Mike can adopt. Father/son marriage? It will all be legal, because there is really no argument against it, other than that kind of marriage just happens to be the kind you are uncomfortable with. Its a brave new world I guess.
Click to expand...

what sorts of things do you worry about on a day to day basis?
 
I think you're wrong, Wrangor. There are very significant differences as I have outlined before. I believe Posner outlined some of them in his very good opinion on gay marriage (a much better opinion than the one Kennedy authored for the SCOTUS). One that has not been mentioned here, but that Posner brought up, is that polygamy - unlike gay marriage - creates harm to nonparticipants in polygamous marriage by reducing the supply of marriageable partners in the marketplace. In extreme situations - which have existed historically - the supply of women is so low that the excess of unmarried men and competition for mates causes significant societal stress. And the stuff about brother/sister and father/son marriage is just silly talk.
 
Is this... is this really a multi-page thread on the Wake Forest message board?
 
CantStandYa said:
Is this... is this really a multi-page thread on the Wake Forest message board?
Click to expand...

trump-steaks.jpg
 
You can concoct all sorts of arguments as to why it's different and harmful but the real reason it's not legal is because it's not currently socially acceptable. The proponents of polygamy are far fewer and are hated in a way that gays generally are not- they are outside the mainstream. As the demographics change and the population from Muslim countries continues to grow in the coming decades perhaps attitudes will change and polygamy will become more socially acceptable. It's proponents can cite all sorts of reasons as to why polygamy is beneficial to them, society, and why it's not acceptable for the government to discriminate against them.
 
Wrangor said:
But there is really no stopping this tidal wave. If a gay couple can be married, then there is no reason to limit anyone else as long as they are adult and consenting. Incest at some point will be on the table as well.
Click to expand...

First of all, pretty sure incest is already on the table where you live and it's the main course. Second of all, WTF?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
what sorts of things do you worry about on a day to day basis?
Click to expand...

Where did I mention the word worry? Don't imply what I never said. Just seems to be a natural conclusion. I am no more worried about a polygamous relationship than I am a gay one. Does it worry you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
awaken said:
Predicted slippery slope wins. Muslims demand polygamy in Italy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3458111/posts
Click to expand...

When it happens it will probably happen in Europe first. There's been a problem in a number of European countries where the recent migrants have been bringing their child brides with them.
Imam Urges Denmark To Allow Muslim Child Brides: ‘It’s Part Of Their Culture’
A number of recent cases where marriages of adult men to girls as young as 14 years of age, sanctioned by the Danish state, has become a national scandal. Now, right-wing immigration minister Inger Støjberg has vowed the children will be protected in future, with couples where one of the parties is under 18 being separated whether they have already arrived in Denmark or not — although the age of consent in the country is just 15.

“It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it”, said Støjberg this week. In at least one case an adult husband was allowed to see his pregnant young wife under supervision, and in another the authorities were misled over the age of the wife and she was allowed to live with her husband in migrant accommodation unchecked.

It is reported eight married children in Danish asylum centres are already pregnant, or have given birth. The government is now planning to deport migrant men who marry and impregnate children, while giving the girls refuge.

Despite the strong Danish reaction to the practice of marrying children among some migrants, Imam Oussama El-Saadi of the Aarhus mosque has said the Danish government must relax their laws and respect migrant families, whatever age the brides are.

Speaking to Danish newspaper Metroxpress, the Imam said: “One should look at these cases from a different perspective. It is an extraordinary humanitarian situation, and I think you have to take care of these families. They’re married, and even if the man is twice as old as they have built a family. We have to accept that it is a different culture, and we can not destroy family life”.

The marriage of young children to older men went even further than just foreign and unfamiliar cultures arriving in Europe, said the Imam, but it was also a side-effect of the migrant crisis, he said: “If you look at the situation in the refugee camps, it is often filled with violence and uncertainty.

“If your daughter marries early and gets a man, it can give the family a safer situation”.

The Imam was of the opinion that girls married off early during the migrant crisis would be more sheltered and protected than those who were not, but added he wouldn’t allow his own daughter to marry until she turned 18.

While the youngest married girl seeking asylum in Denmark so far has been 14, other northern European states have seen similar problems, and worse. Norway saw dozens of migrant children arriving married in 2015, with one girl just eleven years old. Most of the married children came from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as reported by Breitbart London at the time.
Click to expand...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/11/imam-hits-out-at-danish-government-after-plan-to-rescue-child-bridge-migrants-its-part-of-our-culture/
 
Deacon923 said:
I think you're wrong, Wrangor. There are very significant differences as I have outlined before. I believe Posner outlined some of them in his very good opinion on gay marriage (a much better opinion than the one Kennedy authored for the SCOTUS). One that has not been mentioned here, but that Posner brought up, is that polygamy - unlike gay marriage - creates harm to nonparticipants in polygamous marriage by reducing the supply of marriageable partners in the marketplace. In extreme situations - which have existed historically - the supply of women is so low that the excess of unmarried men and competition for mates causes significant societal stress. And the stuff about brother/sister and father/son marriage is just silly talk.
Click to expand...

That is not he litmus test we set up though. We didn't 'evolve' towards gay marriage because it was utilitarian. We moved that direction because it was declared a right that two consenting adults could not be infringed upon their choice for marriage. I am not arguing for against this philosophy but simply taking it to its natural conclusion. If society has no right to tell two consenting adults who they should marry, then they simply have no right. You can't pick and choose. Either society has the right to tell two (or three) people or they don't. You can't be a bigot because you have a different utilitarian view of things. Anyone who isn't gay rights is now a bigot in American society by definition. That is indisputable. Once hat is established then it is bigotry to not extend those same rights to someone else making different life choices than you.

Again - I am not 'worried', this is simply the natural conclusion to our current social philosophy. I predicted it several years ago, and it is going to happen sooner or later.

There is no difference in a 25 year old son wanting to marry his 50 year old father as there is a 25 year old gay man marrying a 50 year old sugar daddy. They can have the exact same relationship. They can fulfill each other in the exact same way. It sounds gross to me but there is no true utilitarian argument against it and there certainly isn't any acceptable argument using our current litmus test for acceptable marriage. It makes liberals uncomfortable to compare the two but the reality is they are both alternative lifestyles that have little to no impact on how our society will function.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
buckets said:
Again, don't be dumb
Click to expand...

He's making sense and your only response is this. I'm sure you used the argument, "The government shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against consenting adults, and that's what this is, discrimination" when arguing for gay marriage. We've all heard it. I myself used it. Well, if you follow that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, polygamy between adults should be allowed. The only reason it's acceptable to discriminate against them is because they're widely disliked while being gay is much more socially acceptable.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
He's making sense and your only response is this. I'm sure you used the argument, "The government shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against consenting adults, and that's what this is, discrimination" when arguing for gay marriage. We've all heard it. I myself used it. Well, if you follow that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, polygamy between adults should be allowed. The only reason it's acceptable to discriminate against them is because they're widely disliked while being gay is much more socially acceptable.
Click to expand...

You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying the government shouldn't discriminate against consenting adults. It does it all the time.

See: prostitution, selling cocaine, etc.
 
MysteryMen said:
You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying the government shouldn't discriminate against consenting adults. It does it all the time.

See: prostitution, selling cocaine, etc.
Click to expand...

In terms of gay marriage, just about everyone who was in favor of it used that argument at one time or another. It was the most common argument I heard in favor of it. If you can't acknowledge that you're being dishonest. And bringing up prostitution and selling cocaine, when we're talking about marriage, is just density.
 
An incestuous relationship is not vaguely like a loving gay relationship. Nor is polygamy like gay marriage other than being considered evil by fundamentalist Christians. Gay marriage is about love. Polygamy is about power just like incest.
 
You could easily make the argument heterosexual marriage has historically been about power.
 
Wrangor said:
That is not he litmus test we set up though. We didn't 'evolve' towards gay marriage because it was utilitarian. We moved that direction because it was declared a right that two consenting adults could not be infringed upon their choice for marriage. I am not arguing for against this philosophy but simply taking it to its natural conclusion. If society has no right to tell two consenting adults who they should marry, then they simply have no right. You can't pick and choose. Either society has the right to tell two (or three) people or they don't. You can't be a bigot because you have a different utilitarian view of things. Anyone who isn't gay rights is now a bigot in American society by definition. That is indisputable. Once hat is established then it is bigotry to not extend those same rights to someone else making different life choices than you.

AThere is no difference in a 25 year old son wanting to marry his 50 year old father as there is a 25 year old gay man marrying a 50 year old sugar daddy. They can have the exact same relationship. They can fulfill each other in the exact same way. It sounds gross to me but there is no true utilitarian argument against it and there certainly isn't any acceptable argument using our current litmus test for acceptable marriage. It makes liberals uncomfortable to compare the two but the reality is they are both alternative lifestyles that have little to no impact on how our society will function.


gain - I am not 'worried', this is simply the natural conclusion to our current social philosophy. I predicted it several years ago, and it is going to happen sooner or later.

There is no difference in a 25 year old son wanting to marry his 50 year old father as there is a 25 year old gay man marrying a 50 year old sugar daddy. They can have the exact same relationship. They can fulfill each other in the exact same way. It sounds gross to me but there is no true utilitarian argument against it and there certainly isn't any acceptable argument using our current litmus test for acceptable marriage. It makes liberals uncomfortable to compare the two but the reality is they are both alternative lifestyles that have little to no impact on how our society will function.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Bold 1: This is just simply not correct. The legal and constitutional argument is not, and has never been, that "consenting adults could not be infringed upon their choice for marriage" (not even grammatically correct, but whatever). The argument is, a committed gay couple and a committed hetero couple are not meaningfully different in the eyes of the law, or, put another way, the differences between them do not implicate any substantial governmental interest. Therefore, they should be treated the same. You are constructing an argument that is easier for you to argue against, which is also known as a straw man. As outlined in my earlier posts, there are substantial differences between polygamous and monogamous unions, those differences implicate substantial governmental interests (including, protection of children, protection of women, administration of laws, and avoiding societal unrest due to limited supplies of marriage partners).

Bold 2: Of course there is a difference. Are you seriously arguing that there is no difference between child abuse and a May-December romance? You might want to rethink that position, because it's repugnant. Like seriously repugnant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top