• 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?

Deacon923 said:
By the way, here's Posner's opinion. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2526:J:posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

The argument that "people should have a right to marry whoever they want to" was neither advanced by the plaintiffs nor affirmed by Judge Posner. Posner's opinion focuses on homosexuality's status as an immutable characteristic and the lack of any rational governmental interest in discriminating against couples exhibiting that immutable characteristic, given the lack of negative externalities arising from government recognition. Posner considers and rejects as wholly irrational several alleged negative externalities that Indiana and Wisconsin tried to advance. A desire to marry two women is not an immutable characteristic. A desire to commit incest might be (yuck) but has many negative externalities that government has a rational - indeed, substantive and compelling - interest in preventing.

The discussion of polygamy is not in this opinion, maybe he wrote about it in an opinion piece somewhere. If I find it again I'll post it.
Click to expand...

Wait a second. The desire to have constant sexual relations with moe than one woman is not an immutable characteristic? And that sexual orientation is? Come on now. Everyone is still sidestepping the issue. Gay marriage in our country was established because the government is not allowed to tell someone who they love. Yet with polygamy we do exactly that. To be honest if 5 people want to get married go for it. I disagree with your premise for marriage but I disagree with a lot of people's foundation for marriage. We decided as a country that we weren't going to use a moral code (and I use that word hesitantly because it was based on one subsets version of morality) to determine if people could marry. We are saying "don't judge me because I want to marry a same sec partner!" Or "don't judge me because I am a 6'4" 240 lb make that identifies as a woman!" But when it domes to 2 guys and a girl having a relationship that works for them we put a stop to it. It is hypocritical. Perhaps the reason that abuse is so high in polygamy is because it IS illegal and therefore only people predisposed to deviant behavior are brave enough to come out.

All these arguments being used are the same ones that the right used against homosexuality for years. It is hypocritical to turn around and use them against a lifestyle that is amply further outside the norm than you are comfortable with. It's almost comical to see the hoops some of you are jumps through. You can go through your intro research methods p values all you want but gay marriage wasn't legalized because of its utility to society. It was legalized because it was deemed a right that could not be interfered with my government. The logic simply stands that if it is a right then it is a right. I have yet to see a compelling argument otherwise.

Ya'll have a good one. I'll be proven correct on this one. Of that I am certain. Polygamy will be legal as soon as someone on the left realized the hypocrisy and makes an issue out of it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MysteryMen said:
Agree that PH's argument was bad. But the better argument is that gay marriage doesn't cause the same societal harms that plural marriage does.
Click to expand...

Since gay marriage is pretty new and group marriage basically non-existent how do you know whether or not either causes "societal harm?"
 
RJKarl said:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mining-the-headlines/200910/incest-power-not-sex

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of other such articles by experts that show incest is about power, not love or sex.

The fact that you want to equate incest to love shared by gay people shows definitively that you don't accept gay marriage and want to demean it and marginalize it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I see it as people expressing themselves relationally and sexually. You are one demeaning people's own desires. I can google news articles from psychologists in favor of polygamy too. Doesn't make them any more valid and it doesn't address the point. We don't ban people from abusive marriages now. We arrest them if they do abuse. Who is to say the reason polygamy may show higher abuse is simply because it is illegal and therefore only people outside the norm find it an appropriate choice. My guess is that there is a high correlation between many illegal activities and negative character traits because the people that are willing to do something illegal often have character flaws. Your post is more of the same. Condescension towards a lifestyle that you don't agree with. Sounds very hypocritical to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wrangor said:
Ya'll have a good one. I'll be proven correct on this one. Of that I am certain. Polygamy will be legal as soon as someone on the left realized the hypocrisy and makes an issue out of it.
Click to expand...

Polygamy is already legal in 57 countries around the world, and was before legalization of gay marriage started happening. The issue here is whether legalization of gay marriage will cause it to be legal in other countries, and you're the only one sidestepping it. If polygamous marriage ever becomes legal in the US (it won't), it will be because of religious practices, not because of gay marriage.
 
Wrangor said:
Incorrect. I see it as people expressing themselves relationally and sexually. You are one demeaning people's own desires. I can google news articles from psychologists in favor of polygamy too. Doesn't make them any more valid and it doesn't address the point. We don't ban people from abusive marriages now. We arrest them if they do abuse. Who is to say the reason polygamy may show higher abuse is simply because it is illegal and therefore only people outside the norm find it an appropriate choice. My guess is that there is a high correlation between many illegal activities and negative character traits because the people that are willing to do something illegal often have character flaws. Your post is more of the same. Condescension towards a lifestyle that you don't agree with. Sounds very hypocritical to me.


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

Whether you like it or not, it's an accepted thesis in the psychological community that incest is about power not love or sex. It does address the point. Plus there are defined health issues as well.

Your cynical attempt to equate gay marriage to things are inherently abusive to the participants shows your are being dishonest and disingenuous in allegedly supporting marriage equality.
 
Wrangor said:
Wait a second. The desire to have constant sexual relations with moe than one woman is not an immutable characteristic? And that sexual orientation is? Come on now. Everyone is still sidestepping the issue. Gay marriage in our country was established because the government is not allowed to tell someone who they love. Yet with polygamy we do exactly that. To be honest if 5 people want to get married go for it. I disagree with your premise for marriage but I disagree with a lot of people's foundation for marriage. We decided as a country that we weren't going to use a moral code (and I use that word hesitantly because it was based on one subsets version of morality) to determine if people could marry. We are saying "don't judge me because I want to marry a same sec partner!" Or "don't judge me because I am a 6'4" 240 lb make that identifies as a woman!" But when it domes to 2 guys and a girl having a relationship that works for them we put a stop to it. It is hypocritical. Perhaps the reason that abuse is so high in polygamy is because it IS illegal and therefore only people predisposed to deviant behavior are brave enough to come out.

All these arguments being used are the same ones that the right used against homosexuality for years. It is hypocritical to turn around and use them against a lifestyle that is amply further outside the norm than you are comfortable with. It's almost comical to see the hoops some of you are jumps through. You can go through your intro research methods p values all you want but gay marriage wasn't legalized because of its utility to society. It was legalized because it was deemed a right that could not be interfered with my government. The logic simply stands that if it is a right then it is a right. I have yet to see a compelling argument otherwise.

Ya'll have a good one. I'll be proven correct on this one. Of that I am certain. Polygamy will be legal as soon as someone on the left realized the hypocrisy and makes an issue out of it.




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

You would actually have a better argument for polygamy if you couched it in terms of religion rather than sexual desire. Sexual desire has never, ever been treated as an immutable characteristic. People are expected to govern their sexual desires when those desires have negative impacts on others. Some people have the sexual desire to rape others, that is not an "immutable characteristic", or if it is, it has huge negative externalities and the government can, and does, have a strong interest in regulating against it.

You continue to sidestep the issue of negative externalities. The religious right tried as hard as they could to find and prove some kind of negative externality to allowing gay marriage. They couldn't. The negative externalities of polygamy, and certainly incest, are well known. The state has a rational, indeed compelling, interest in protecting its citizens against those negative effects. There is no hypocrisy here, because the situations are simply not the same. The state has a compelling interest in regulating all kinds of "desires" that have little or nothing to do with a moral code, because those desires - if freely exercised - have negative effects on other people.

You also continue to sidestep the equal protection issue. There is no discernable difference between a same sex couple and a hetero couple in the eyes of the state except for pronouns and their bedroom behavior (which the state can't regulate per Loving etc.). There are quite a few differences between couples and throuples and quadrangles and whatever else when it comes to regulation of property rights, estates, and child welfare.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this issue respectfully. I hope I have done the same.
 
It seems like the issue is that wrangor is salty that gay people are able to get married and he's trying to find reasons why it's a problem that he doesn't make him sound like a homophobe

Will we be marrying chickens next?!?!!? Gonzo was ahead of his time!
 
Wrangor crushing it. The only one using logic. Funny since he is the "religious" and the other side claims to love science.
 
Deacon923 said:
You would actually have a better argument for polygamy if you couched it in terms of religion rather than sexual desire. Sexual desire has never, ever been treated as an immutable characteristic. People are expected to govern their sexual desires when those desires have negative impacts on others. Some people have the sexual desire to rape others, that is not an "immutable characteristic", or if it is, it has huge negative externalities and the government can, and does, have a strong interest in regulating against it.

You continue to sidestep the issue of negative externalities. The religious right tried as hard as they could to find and prove some kind of negative externality to allowing gay marriage. They couldn't. The negative externalities of polygamy, and certainly incest, are well known. The state has a rational, indeed compelling, interest in protecting its citizens against those negative effects. There is no hypocrisy here, because the situations are simply not the same. The state has a compelling interest in regulating all kinds of "desires" that have little or nothing to do with a moral code, because those desires - if freely exercised - have negative effects on other people.

You also continue to sidestep the equal protection issue. There is no discernable difference between a same sex couple and a hetero couple in the eyes of the state except for pronouns and their bedroom behavior (which the state can't regulate per Loving etc.). There are quite a few differences between couples and throuples and quadrangles and whatever else when it comes to regulation of property rights, estates, and child welfare.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this issue respectfully. I hope I have done the same.
Click to expand...

Of course sir. I see where you are coming from just disagree with your premise. We will see which side our culture stands with. I predict that marriage will continue its current trend of inclusion to previously uncomfortable relationships. I am not sure how far it will go but I am very sure that polygamy will be included in the umbrella in the fairly near future (decade or so) and down the road see even more unusual unions becoming acceptable to the public and therefore codified into law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You can't be serious in thinking polygamy will be legal in the US in the next decade.
 
Deacon923 said:
You would actually have a better argument for polygamy if you couched it in terms of religion rather than sexual desire. Sexual desire has never, ever been treated as an immutable characteristic. People are expected to govern their sexual desires when those desires have negative impacts on others. Some people have the sexual desire to rape others, that is not an "immutable characteristic", or if it is, it has huge negative externalities and the government can, and does, have a strong interest in regulating against it.

You continue to sidestep the issue of negative externalities. The religious right tried as hard as they could to find and prove some kind of negative externality to allowing gay marriage. They couldn't. The negative externalities of polygamy, and certainly incest, are well known. The state has a rational, indeed compelling, interest in protecting its citizens against those negative effects. There is no hypocrisy here, because the situations are simply not the same. The state has a compelling interest in regulating all kinds of "desires" that have little or nothing to do with a moral code, because those desires - if freely exercised - have negative effects on other people.

You also continue to sidestep the equal protection issue. There is no discernable difference between a same sex couple and a hetero couple in the eyes of the state except for pronouns and their bedroom behavior (which the state can't regulate per Loving etc.). There are quite a few differences between couples and throuples and quadrangles and whatever else when it comes to regulation of property rights, estates, and child welfare.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this issue respectfully. I hope I have done the same.
Click to expand...

You are sidestepping the point that polyamory is immutable at least in the same way homosexuality is immutable. Call it what you want -- I prefer attraction -- but the trait that courts are concluding is immutable about the gays is their attraction/desire/affinity for people of the same sex. If the attraction to those of the same sex is immutable in the gays, then the attraction to many different people is immutable in polygamists.
 
buckets said:
It seems like the issue is that wrangor is salty that gay people are able to get married and he's trying to find reasons why it's a problem that he doesn't make him sound like a homophobe

Will we be marrying chickens next?!?!!? Gonzo was ahead of his time!
Click to expand...

No. I am completely comfortable with gay marriage as someone else's choice. I CHanged my view on it several years ago. My current view is more libertarian. The government shouldn't get involved. Everyone assumes I am against gay marriage because they know my faith, but just because I am personally averse to a 'lifestyle' (I say that with full recognition of my differences on what that means to other people) doesn't mean I think the government should be involved. I think it was the religious rights push against all this that dropped it on their head. So I am not against gay marriage. A decade, or probably 5 years ago I would have said differently. I have matured in my political philosophy. My faith stance hasn't changed but I have a better (in my opinion) view on how to relate my faith and it isn't through political oppression.

One of the main issues I have the Republican Party (and this is true with democrats as well) is that we can't disagree with a philosophy or life choice without making it a personal or character attack. I am aiming to do better. That is the only way I can see to make a positive impact with my faith amongst a culture that is clearly at odds with my beliefs. If I try to politically or otherwise fight with everyone then my witness (and life) is useless. That isn't the model of Jesus. He held firm to the truth but welcomed everyone to discuss and have friendship. He only people Jesus didn't befriend were the people who thought they already knew it all. I don't want to be one of those people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top