Homosexuality and Polygamy

[Bishka]

Again, I thought of this in the shower. :jiggy:

I was wondering, everyone who is for eqaul rights and marriage for homosexuals, then would it also be okay to allow polygamy again?

Why or why not? Should we be encouraging the polygamists to fight for their rights?

Opinions, feelings, whatever. :jam: I'm just in a good mood, so I'll just probably sit back and watch.

 

[standing_alone]

I was wondering, everyone who is for eqaul rights and marriage for homosexuals, then would it also be okay to allow polygamy again?

Ummm, how would extending marriage to homosexuals automatically mean that those in favor of that are for polygamous (is that a word?) marriage?

I don't belive in extending marriage to polygamists because I think marriage is an institution where two consenting adults make a commitment to one another to be the first person to care for their spouse before anyone else, family, friends, state, you know. Spouses are supposed to be dedicated to one another and are obligated to care for one another - this obligation can't really be fulfilled in a polygamous (again, is that a word?) marriage.

 

[Bishka]

Cool. Cool. I'm not saying they would automatically be in favor, but should we encourage it and why not? That's all.

 

[Buttercup]

I wouldn't agree because I think it demoralizes women. Most women in a polygamist situation do not have many 'rights'. The man is wholly in charge and the women are expected to be entirely submissive to the man. Forget that stuff!

 

[Bishka]

What if the government by some 'miracle' was able to provide to the women that they would not be treated like that? If that was possible could it be okay then?

 

[Buttercup]

What if the government by some 'miracle' was able to provide to the women that they would not be treated like that? If that was possible could it be okay then?

I don't see how the government can control the actions of men behind closed doors.

 

[Mister Emu]

I am going to play Devil's Advocate here... I do not believe that marriage is a right.

I don't belive in extending marriage to polygamists because I think marriage is an institution where two consenting adults make a commitment to one another to be the first person to care for their spouse before anyone else, family, friends, state, you know.

What is the difference between you believing marriage is defined as two consenting adults... excluding more than two consentual adults and a extremist believing marriage is defined as two consenting adults excluding same-sex people? Or that it should be caring for a singular spouse over all others as opposed to caring for two or three spouses before anyone else?

Spouses are supposed to be dedicated to one another and are obligated to care for one another - this obligation can't really be fulfilled in a polygamous (again, is that a word?) marriage.

Why couldn't a polygamous spouse care for multiple people? Why couldn't a group of people be dedicated to each other?

What is the difference between you saying just two people committed to each other and an extremist saying just two heterosexuals committed to each other?

 

[Bishka]

I was trying to play devils advocate, but I wasn't doing it very well, frubals to you Mister Emu for doing what I couldn't.

Basically listen to Mister Emu's devils advocate argument, that's what I was trying to say.

 

[Mister Emu]

I wouldn't agree because I think it demoralizes women. Most women in a polygamist situation do not have many 'rights'. The man is wholly in charge and the women are expected to be entirely submissive to the man. Forget that stuff

Should marriage be illegal because sometimes the man is wholly in charge and the woman is expected to be entirely submissive to the man? I propose that women and men in a polygamous marriage would retain the same rights as a man and woman in monogamous marriage...

 

[standing_alone]

What is the difference between you believing marriage is defined as two consenting adults... excluding more than two consentual adults and a extremist believing marriage is defined as two consenting adults excluding same-sex people?

Because either a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple will be able to adequately meet their partner's needs. I highly doubt a polygamist would, having so many spouses to attend to.

Or that it should be caring for a singular spouse over all others as opposed to caring for two or three spouses before anyone else?

Reason stated above.

Why couldn't a polygamous spouse care for multiple people?

The polygamist could "care" for other people, but I highly doubt the polygamist could adequately meet every spouses' needs.

Why couldn't a group of people be dedicated to each other?

They can be. Maybe they can start a commune or a cult or something.

What is the difference between you saying just two people committed to each other and an extremist saying just two heterosexuals committed to each other?

I don't know. *shrugs*

 

[Mister Emu]

Because either a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple will be able to adequately meet their partner's needs. I highly doubt a polygamist would, having so many spouses to attend to.

So your doubts as to the capabilities of the generally sole sexed individual in a polygamous relationship should deny them marriage? What if all of them are perfectly happy and love the situation?

The polygamist could "care" for other people, but I highly doubt the polygamist could adequately meet every spouses' needs.

Remember they are all polygamists... ideally they would all work together in harmony for the needs of the family unit.

They can be. Maybe they can start a commune or a cult or something.

Exactly... if they are all dedicated, why not allow them marriage...

I don't know. *shrugs*

You would deny them basic rights and your response would be a shrug and "I don't know"?:tsk:

 

[standing_alone]

Hell, I don't like the idea of polygamous (still have no idea if that's a word - I think it is ) marriages, but I could really care less if it's ever allowed or not. I think it's a bad idea, but I wouldn't fight against it. I've only stated why I think it's a bad idea. If polygamists fight for their right for marriage, I'm not going to stand in their way. I'm not going to call for action against it. I'm not going to go out and vote against it (I wouldn't vote on it at all). If they get the right of marriage, it won't bother me. I guess it's their choice. *shrugs*

 

[jamaesi]

Polygamy /= Homosexual marriage

Personally, I am for both. I just fail to see a connection between the two besides being forms marriage or why one should follow the other just because them both being marriage. It's like saying there is a connection between polygamy and marrying dogs or toasters.

I am going to play Devil's Advocate here... I do not believe that marriage is a right.

As long as marriage provides rights and benefits to those who get married and denies those same rights and benefits to others who desire and deserve them- marriage is a right.

 

[Mister Emu]

Hell, I don't like the idea of polygamous (still have no idea if that's a word - I think it is ) marriages, but I could really care less if it's ever allowed or not. I think it's a bad idea, but I wouldn't fight against it. I've only stated why I think it's a bad idea. If polygamists fight for their right for marriage, I'm not going to stand in their way. I'm not going to call for action against it. I'm not going to go out and vote against it (I wouldn't vote on it at all). If they get the right of marriage, it won't bother me. I guess it's their choice. *shrugs*

Just so you know, I agree with you... I think it is a bad idea as well...

Also, thank you for giving me the opportunity to argue a viewpoint I do not agree with

 

[standing_alone]

Also, thank you for giving me the opportunity to argue a viewpoint I do not agree with

You're welcome

 

[Mister Emu]

Polygamy /= Homosexual marriage

I don't believe anyone was saying homosexual and polygamous marriage were the same thing... I was just saying that arguements for both are the same...

As long as marriage provides rights and benefits to those who get married and denies those same rights and benefits to others who desire and deserve them- marriage is a right.

I don't see anything as a right that is not enumerated in either the US or your state's constitution.

 

[jamaesi]

I don't believe anyone was saying homosexual and polygamous marriage were the same thing... I was just saying that arguements for both are the same...

Not really. There's a bit of difference between wanting two people together and three+. There are different backgrounds for them, also, homosexual marriage is mostly secular while most polygamy is from a religious background (though I do know of polygamous couples who are together because they all love each other, not because of religion).

I don't see anything as a right that is not enumerated in either the US or your state's constitution.

I'm sure you'd say the same if you were barred from seeing your loved one who was dying in the hospital because their family didn't agree with your relationship with them.

 

[Mister Emu]

There's a bit of difference between wanting two people together and three+.

What exactly would that be? The number? Who cares about the number.

I'm sure you'd say the same if you were barred from seeing your loved one who was dying in the hospital because their family didn't agree with your relationship with them.

If it were not my legal right to see them and another had power of deciding, I would plead with the person... and advocate legislation favoring my view... I would attempt to sway the voting public...

 

[evearael]

This goes back to the core of what marriage is in the eyes of the government, two individual who are a single economic unit. Most of the rights conferred by marriage, with the exception of rights to visit in the hospital, and the like, are in some way related to economics whether it is the right to healthcare, insurance policies and inheritance. Marriage, under civil law, is a contract. I believe that these contracts should be valid between consenting and sound adults. That is why GBLT marriages should be legalized, because an entire segment of the consenting adult population is prohibited from simple economic contracts. By the same logic, polygamy and polygyny could be added.

That said, church's have, and should always have, the autonomy to say who may and who may not be married or recognized by the church. Chances are the marriages many on this forum hold so dear are recognized as valid in their own houses of worship, but would not be in others.

Domestic violence and abuse are already illegal and manifest in a disturbingly high rate in heterosexual couples, so it's a bit akin to the pot calling the kettle black, to suggest that polygamy be banned for fear of abuse is silly.

 

[jamaesi]

What exactly would that be? The number? Who cares about the number.

Things get tricky with things such as wills and benefits and a multitude of other things. Number plays a part in this.

If it were not my legal right to see them and another had power of deciding, I would plead with the person... and advocate legislation favoring my view... I would attempt to sway the voting public...

Which is why we're trying to get gay marriage legal. (But we don't deserve the same rights that heterosexuals currently have because of what genitals we have.)