Polygomy . . .

[Athelwulf]

Polygamy . . .

Currently there's a hype about whether or not homosexual marriage should be allowed. What will be the next big issue? I think it could be polygamy.

I am curious about the opinions of SciForumers on polygamy. Let me ask a few questions:

1. Is it immoral? Why or why not?
2. Should it remain illegal? Why or why not?
3. If your response to both questions was "yes", on what do you base your belief? Why or why not?

Feel free to build on this. I'll share my opinions later.

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf

(66 posts to go!)

 

[Tiassa]

I'm curious how the one relates to the other?

 

[Athelwulf]

The one what relates to the other what?

65 posts to go!

 

[Tiassa]

Homosexuality to polygamy.

 

[Athelwulf]

Obviously some people think both homosexual and polygamous marriages are immoral. The "immorality" of homosexual marriage is being challenged right now. I think the "immorality" of polygamous marriage is next in line to be challenged.

(64 posts to go!)

 

[Mystech]

Obviously some people think both homosexual and polygomous marriages are immoral. The "immorality" of homosexual marriages are being challenged right now. I think the "immorality" of polygomous marriages are next in line to be challenged.

(64 posts to go!)

This is a pretty common and I must say sadly flawed way of looking at the issue. The government doesn't really have a place to rule on the morality of this sort of marriage, not even the Republicans are saying that it shouldn't be allowed for moral reasons, they try to argue that it would somehow destroy the institution of marriage all together (which would likely be a bad thing, I think everyone agrees on that). The morality of the issue is for your personal convictions and religious beliefs to let you decide. It's not the government's place to be making decisions of religion and faith for all the people, in such a diverse land which happens to be governed under the first amendment.

Looking at it from a stance of "Is it moral" is highly subjective and theoretical, principals which aren't very good for running a nation on. If you feel that people are allowed to marry members of the same sex, and as such the government comes out and says "you're allowed to think that this isn't evil" (and that's all the moral implications would be in a legal same sex marriage situation) that would not necessarily open up the doors for polygamy, because inductive moralization alone isn't going to be what wins the fight for gay marriage. It's just going to take the right people to accept that the legal benefits of marriage are befitting of the nature of the relationship, and that whether people like it or not homosexuals are already engaging in that form of relationship, there is a demand for the protection, and the relationship fits so there's no real reason to deny the legal benefits.

If polygamy wants the same treatment then it will likely go through the same steps: a popular outcry, and a show of applicability and necessity for those sets of legal benefits along with an explanation of possible faults with the arrangement. It would be a very different fight, I think, as the dynamic is so far changed when you bring variable numbers of people into the fold, but getting deeper into that is probably for another thread.

 

[robtex]

To contend that polymory was moral or ammoral one would have to contend that marriage is an act of morality or can be an act of morality. I find it to be neither moral or amoral. It is a contract recognized by outside parties of the community state and or religious instituion of assocation as to a partnership. Morality is not a qualification of the partership on any level. I would argue anyone to create a convincing arguement as to how a marriage can be moral or amoral.

To combat the big ones up front

1) It is moral to marry when the woman is pregnant. Why? if there is financial compensation what good would it serve to adjoin two people if one is an unwilling partipant?
2) It is moral to marry before engaging in sex. If sex is the reason for adjoinment you are looking at a short marriage or a long unhappy one.
3) It is moral to marry before living together as a couple. It is foolhardy to marry without living together..how do you know you will enjoy marriage if you don't live together?

Hey wait I am arguing with myself this late at night? time to sleep.....

But to conclude if one cannot prove marriage as moral or ammoral why would be the basis in defining the nature of that adjoinment?

 

[Tiassa]

Obviously some people think both homosexual and polygamous marriages are immoral. The "immorality" of homosexual marriage is being challenged right now. I think the "immorality" of polygamous marriage is next in line to be challenged.

Is "immorality" really the comparison? I think it's too superficial.

In the meantime, I would be interested in seeing the Constitutional argument obliging the legalization of polygamy.

Of course, I hold the actual institution of marriage in some disdain inasmuch as I will appreciate in theory the right to marry another man, but I'm not marrying anybody. I'm already nearly two years into a domestic clock toward a common-law marriage, and I don't intend to allow that to happen.

Then again, perhaps I might someday find that person who defines marriage in a manner that doesn't make it seem like such a bad idea. It will be nice if the law doesn't prevent that person from entering a legal contract with social ramifications simply because that person is the wrong gender.

I mean, it's worth mentioning that hermaphrodites can't marry anyone under these marriage-protection acts, but I suppose that's for a topic about something other than the polygamous assignation to the homosexual issue.

Polygamy? I personally don't care. But anyone wishing to enter into a polygamous obligation ... well, I think they're f@cking crazy, and thereby would hold them not competent to enter any legal contract. However, I can't say that's definitively true, so it's sort of a, "Whatever," thing with me. Ask me to sign no petitions and I won't have to tell anyone to leave me out of it.

 

[one_raven]

I don't necessarily agree with the implied parallels between homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage, but I CAN understand how a polygamous person could very well see it that way, and perhaps even claim homosexual marriage as a precedent.
It could go something liek this...

The point of the fight for homosexual marriage to be legalized is what?
"It should not be within the rights of the government to disallow someone to marry a person they are in love with, regardless of race, religion, gender or any other prejudice."
Correct?
Well, I contend that the state is refusing to allow me to be married to Jenny and Bob, although I is in love with both of them.
If you state that I can't be in love with both of them you are forcing your unqualified moralistic views upon me, view which neither I nor my religion share with you.
I am being discriminated against simply because you do not understand my views or my way of life.
I am being persecuted because I am different than you.
If you will allow me to marry Bob, but not Jenny, and Jenny gets into a car accident and ends up in ICU, I can't visit the woman I love because I am not allowed to marry her.
All I am asking for is the exact same civil liberties that every other person in this country is afforded.
The right to see the people I love in the hospital, the right to make funeral arrangements for my loved ones.
You are refusing the woman I love medical insurance simply because you don't agree with our way of life.
Please explain to me how is this any different at all than allowing homosexuals the same legal rights in consideration of their loved ones as heterosexuals?
How is the current state of affairs any different than it was when the state was refusing these same rights to homosexuals simply because their way of life was different than the "accepted norm' in this society.
Homosexuals were granted marriage rights, and they SHOULD have been in interest of tolerance and acceptance of social diversity.
All I am saying is that we should too.
Please give me valid reasons why I should not be afforded the same rights as every other person in this country.

 

[cybercom]

Sure, maybe in a REALLY long while polygamy will be reinstated as legal, but only after homosexuals get THEIR marraige rights. I'm w/ One_Raven on this one, the current situation really sucks for them. But, judging by the current state of affairs it will still be a really long time before homosexuals do get their rights. Look at the election...Bush AND Kerry are sitting on a fence saying "Whatever" now that Chaney's daughter came out.
Now, about polygamy, I don't really think that many people will push the issue. Polygamy was popular when women were cliche stay at home and make babies type people. Lets face it, things change. I don't really think that a man can really handle more than one woman or vice versa and on top of that a woman would be really pissed off not to be her husbands one and only.

So maybe the polygamy thing will never get pushed. Its not as big an issue as gay marraige.

 

[Mystech]

Look at the election...Bush AND Kerry are sitting on a fence saying "Whatever" now that Chaney's daughter came out.

Just to be nit-picky, Bush and Kerry aren't both on the fence on this issue. Both say they think "Marriage is between one man and one woman", though Bush, as part of the republican platform, flatly opposes granting any legal benefits to homosexuals, where as Kerry says he supports those benefits (without calling it marriage, apparently. . . whatever). Also, Dick Cheney's Daughter didn't come out any time recently, she's been out since long before he was even a candidate for the Vice Presidency. It's old news, but it's only in the light of this debate that it really has relevance (all be it rather minor trivial relevance).

 

[alain]

if three (or more) people want to get married, why stop them? its not hurting anyone

 

[Tiassa]

Can you imagine the "marriage penalty"?

Seven brides for seven days?

 

[Kumar]

Does such concepts as polygamy & homosexuality exist in nature (not only in humans ), if yes than yes & if no than NO. So pls discuss & vote accordingly, in consideration of natural sense. In social sense it may more related to 'purpose'. Anyway, one time one for reproduction purpose is good idea--but differant time differant can be acc. to nature.

Practically, what one can afford to justify natural & social consideration to best, can also be a point to think.

 

[one_raven]

Does such concepts as polygamy & homosexuality exist in nature (not only in humans )

Yes.
Quite a few, actually.


The honest question I have is "Why not?"
It's not for me, but if someone wants to, what is the problem with it?
Does it place a greater economic strain on society?
Is there any valid, objective, sound reasoning behind disallowing it, or it is simply the puritanical views of moralists that keep it from being legal?

If YOU are against it for others (regardless of what you would want in your personal life), WHY?

 

[Billy T]

I voted yes because I think marriage may be none of the government's business. See my posts in either "marriage reform that pleases everybody" or "End marriage Laws - a good idea?" threads for alternative to current version of marriage by the legal system.

 

[lixluke]

Why would you want to marry more than one persn?
Marriage means that your spouse is your soulmate.
It's not possible to have an extra soulmate.
Who in their right mind would want to marry an extra person?

 

[Mystech]

Does such concepts as polygamy & homosexuality exist in nature (not only in humans ), if yes than yes & if no than NO.

Well, yes they do, but this is still a pretty weak argument. Just because other animals do it, does that mean we should, too? Animals eat their young in nature! I've always hated this argument. "Because it happens in nature" is a pretty bad argument for or against much of anything. Better to ask, "does it work?"

 

[Asguard]

its simple

you should be able to marry and screw anyone who concents and is ABLE to give that concent

who the hell are any of to tell someone else what they can and cant do in there own bed?

 

[alain]

God