An argument against gay marriage-double standards.

One of the most common arguments that people say in defense of the legalization of gay marriage is, "gays getting married doesn't harm or affect anybody", or "gays getting married doesn't infringe on other people's rights".

However, those arguments could also apply to the legalization of polygamous marriages.

Probably most people who support gay marriage are against legalizing polygamy. When I discussed this issue with some of my friends, they said that they believe that gay marriage should be legal, but when I mentioned polygamy, they said that they don't believe it should be legal. However, that's very hypocritical. After all, just like gay marriage, polygamy doesn't harm or affect anybody else.

The same reasons that they argue that gay marriage should be legalized, could also apply to justifying making polygamy legal. My question (to people who support gay marriage rights) is this. Why do you support making it legal for gays to marry, but you don't support making it legal for men or women to have more than one spouse?

 

My only concern with polygamy is when underage (or very young, mostly brainwashed) girls are "selected" to become "sister wives!"
I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as all party concerned are fully mature and cognizant of what it means for them.

AND, one more issue that would need to be straightened out with polygamy. . .right now, a spouse has the right, even if he/she has never worked outside the home and thus never paid social security, to a "spouse benefit." This is great. . .but what happen if one person paying into social security fund has 4 spouses who are not working outside the home and thus are not contributing to social security?

Would it mean that EACH ONE of those spouse would have equal right to the same payment from social security as in a "traditional" couple with only two parties. . .one who paid into social security and one who didn't? That would, without a doubt bankrupt the system for EVERYONE!

Can you imagine paying not ONE but FOUR or FIVE "spouse benefits?"

I think this should be resolved prior to any talk of "polygamous marriage" be brought forward.

Otherwise, I don't see why it couldn't happen.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Personally, I don't even see it as my place to object to how other people organize their lives and consensual relationships. My one concern is that the laws linked to marriage are not equipped in their current form to handle multiple legally recognized marriages. If they can be modified in a way that does not privilege individuals with multiple marriages above those with singular marriages, then I would be fine with it. Not something I would choose for myself, but if others would, they can do as they please.

 

I have no problem with polygamous or polyamorous marriage. I think it should be legal. If you have 4 or 5 spouses, the benefits should be as one person... split 4 or 5 ways.

 

The slippery slope argument has already been discussed here ad nauseam. One does not lead to the other so your argument is moot. Personally I could not care less how many wives a man has as its really none of my business.

 

Why not ask yourself that question and just remove the word gay from the sentence? It makes just as much sense. That then begs the question as to why marriage is a legal institution in the first place and, if it is represented in law, it has to be offered to people on a like for like basis in a free democracy that values equality.

There are, I should add, numerous countries where polygamy is legal but SSM is not. Why do you think that is? I think it's because they're patriarchal societies where men can basically own as many women as they can afford to keep. Can you think of any reasons why this wouldn't work in societies where women are the legal equal of men?

I really couldn't care less if people have thirty live-in parties of same or different genders what I can't see is how the current contract can be applied across potentially very large groups? Remember most of the incidents of the contract really only come into play when something goes wrong: illness, divorce, custody, financial support etc.

What's to stop 300 people all being involved in an endless string marriage? Some may not even realise they're married to each other which could be embarrassing when someone you've never met sues you for spousal support.

I've always welcomed discussions on how to advance a new style of contract which would suit polygamous groups but people just don't seem interested in a serious discussion of the legalities influencing this situation. They just use it as an excuse to bash gays who are often ostracized or worse, capitally murdered in the sort of places that actually do embrace polygamy in today's world.

 

Why do you support interracial marriage but not polygamy? That questions has as much relevance as yours. I just don't see how the polygamy is connected to same sex marriage (or interracial marriage) at all.

 

Most people are against polygamy being legal, for the simple fact that polygamy is a perverted form of marriage. A proper marriage is not between a man and several wives, or a woman and her many husbands; a proper marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the same reason why I am against gay marriage being legal.

At the same time, people try to justify gay marriage by saying that two gays getting married doesn't affect anybody else or infringe on other people's rights. By that logic, why shouldn't polygamy be legal, since a polygamous group isn't infringing on the rights of others, or affecting anybody else? Should't consenting adults be free to marry more than one person?

That just seems very hypocritical to me-supporting gay marriage on the basis of freedom, while also being against polygamy.

 

I think most people are against polygamy because it divides an individual mans resources between the children of multiple women while traditional marriage helps protect the interest of a woman and her children by preserving those resources for the benefit of one woman and her children. And oppose "gay marriage" because gay relationships have no relevance to men and women joining together to create a family.

 

A lot of people genuinely used to think that interracial marriage was a perverted form of marriage. They genuinely were disgusted by the idea. Some people still are but the law isn't about bending to people's personal disgust.

Not true, a lot of countries permit or even encourage this.

But never this. Hmmm, wonder why?

In your opinion but you don't write the law and in many cases marriage differs from your ideal from state to state and country to country.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion but what you haven't done is convince me why anybody should care?

Which it doesn't but let's not forget the important second half of that sentence which is that they are also similarly or identically situated to those who can already enter the contract and there is no compelling governmental interest served in preventing them from doing so. That's the qualifier people keep missing, even when it's pointed out to them time and time again.

Well if it were solely dependent on "that logic" you might have a point but when you factor in the second half of the argument (the bit you were unaware of or left out deliberately) your position melts like snow in springtime.

Well maybe if a contract could be devised that would suit their needs, why not? Doesn't have anything to do with couples marrying; straight or gay.

That's because you're arguing against a strawman of your own making, not by anything which anybody here is saying. I've carefully read all the posts on this thread and nope, nobody's saying what you claim they're saying. You made that (*)(*)(*)(*) up!

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

 

I think most people don't think that hard about it.

 

Judging by the comments on this thread, I don't think that is the reason why people are against polygamy being legal (unless they are people like you who are also against same-sex marriage). Again, people used to say interracial marriage was a perverted form of marriage. Do you support interracial marriage? If so, you are just as much a hypocrite by supporting interracial marriage and not polygamy.

No. That is not the argument for same-sex marriage. Those are responses to arguments against it which wrongly claim that same-sex marriage will cause harm. The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage that people actually argue are that same-sex marriage is a benefit both to society and the individuals involved. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment requires that all people be treated equally under the law.

You are not using the logic that the vast majority of same-sex marriage supporters use.

You must answer the same question, remember. How can you support interracial marriage but not polygamy? Aren't you just as hypocritical?

 

I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure most people's reactions are less studied and more visceral.

 

Up until the 1960's marriage between a man and a woman of two different races was illegal in many states. When the State of Virginia was sued to overturn that law, Virginia made a very similar argument that you are making- that if marriage between a black person and a white person was made legal, then that would lead to polygamous marriage.

But those laws were overturned- and no one at the time argued- 'hey if interracial marriage is allowed, why isn't gay marriage allowed?".

Each case is seperate. I would argue that allowing mixed race marriages made marriage between two persons more equitable. Allowing gay marriage does much the same.

I simply have no position on polygamous marriage. It is not my issue, nor do I feel compelled in any way to make it my issue.

Generally the only ones trying to link polygamy to gay marriage are against both of them.

To argue that I must support polygamy because someone else disapproves of both gay marriage AND polygamy just is stupid.

 

That is an argument made only by those who are opposed to gay marriage.

If you want to support polygamy, support polygamy.

But don't lecture me on why I don't also promote polygamy- because you are against gay marriage and polygamy.

What I find hypocritical are those who say they are against gay marraige because of some so called defense of marriage while at the same time getting married and divorced like its no more important than getting on and off of an elevator.

Homosexuals want to get married. Too many heterosexuals want to get unmarried.

 

Joining together to create a family? Is that somewhere in the marriage vows that I don't remember? No one told my wife and I that we needed to create a family if we got married. No one told us that we couldn't get divorced if we had children.

Simply not relevant to marriage.

 

Pretty much. But I'll bet it sounded good in Dixon's head when he invented it on behalf of everyone else.

 

I am left to wonder if this member would have opposed my marriage as well....as my wife had a hysterectomy, and I a vasectomy.

If by chance he had done so and attempted to prevent my wedding....He too would never need worry about reproduction in the future.

 

Marriage vows are a product of tradition with no relevance in the law.

 

Nope. Encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry reduces the # of children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.

 

Encouraging sterile heterosexual couples has no effect on single mothers, which is why procreation has nothing to do with who can marry

 

I said Encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry reduces the # of children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. I made no representations as to individual couples.

 

Circular reasoning, based on a subjective opinion.

 

Because you know your argument is self defeating