Same sex marriage & Polygamy

Tools    





Responding to the wishes of the people who put them in office is the basis of our whole electorial process. And if you think your elected representative is not adequately representing you, you vote for a better candidate in the next election. That's the black and white of politics.
Oh, certainment! And the reasons, whys and wherefores of the populace on one side or the other is never mentioned, investigated, discussed, debated or weighed on the news, by the pundits, by the buddies over drinks, or even in say, a thread about same?

You know you're probably right. This discussion is not even an issue. In fact, its so black and white and clear-cut, we shouldnt even need to talk about it. This non-issue, clear-cut, black and white subject that you've debated in excess of 5 posts in just the last few days, isnt murky or grey at all.

But of course that's ridiculous because child-porn is a crime, just like bigamy. ...... Same-sex marriage is not a crime, no one is going to jail for it. ......I can be strongly ...... against bigamy because ...... polygamy is a crime....... And no matter how you slice it, bigamy is a crime. ...... I ... am prejudiced against criminals and .... a hardliner on crime. Polygamous groups ... are no more the subject of government discrimination than are ... any other criminal. It's a crime, same-sex marriage is not. .... No matter how you try, you can't get past that major basic difference. .... These are good people and it hurts to see them ... compared with criminals
I think I see the crux of our disagreement. You seem to be arguing that since polygamy is currently considered a crime, it therefore IS a crime. It is, because it is. So, in other words, because something IS, it should continue to BE. To me, that's begging the question, and is indicative of circular reasoning. Following that line of thought, homosexuality should be a crime as well, because, for example, in the recent centuries of american jurisprudence, the crime of sodomy was codified into just about all state law. It has since been repealed in most states, and is not enforced in others.

Polygamy (bigamy) is a crime on the books NOW. And you argue that since we said it was a crime, it therefore IS a crime. In other words, you seem to suggest that our criminalization of it alone is proof enough of its moral turpitude, because God knows we would only criminalize things that are morally despicable.

But homosexuality was once a crime as well, wasnt it? And if you are to remain consistent in the application of your argument, you would then need to argue that either

(1) homosexuality is still morally despicable and remains a crime, because we all decided that it was at the time, or
(2) saying something is morally despicable and a crime (codifying it into law) does not forestall re-investigating it in the future to legalize it and remove its criminality (or accepted (a)morality).

In my worldview, what is or is not a crime is based on nebulous social mores, and determined by the society that exists at the time. Old crimes are repealed, new crimes are written into law. We decide what is socially (or morally) unacceptable and a crime based on public sentiment at the time, and legislate that into law.

So to imply that the "simple" and "obvious" difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is a CRIME - is a real end-run argument, and it fails to consider the larger picture.

EDIT: Hey ruf - I got your profile comment, and I appreciate it - we're on the same page man! in spite of everything we're talking about, let me take this moment to dial it down a notch and ...well.....

...Hug it out!

cheers buddy!
__________________
something witty goes here......



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Additionally, I've already clearly acknowledged in a previous post that gay marriage can practically fit within the current framework of marriage, as opposed to polygamy, which cannot.

....


THIS is the logical argument - that [practicalities aside] any REAL proponent of gay marriage, must necessarily be a proponent of polygamy as well. Practical reasons aside, anything less is hypocritical.
Why put practicalities aside? Polygamy cannot fit into the current framework of marriage, as you have stated. Therefore allowing polygamy would change the very concept and framework of marriage which allowing gay marriage would not. So I don't see that as logical at all. Allowing two people of the same gender to the same right to marriage as two people of opposite genders - considering marriage as a union of love and support between two people and the resultant legal benefits - does not logically or necessarily lead to polygamy. I do not believe it is hypocritical to say this at all. If this is hypocritical is it not also hypocritical to allow heterosexual marriage but not gay marriage?

And if we're leaving practicalities aside, why not leave logic aside? What about the moral question? Gay marriage does not harm either those who undertake it or anyone else within society. Bigamous or polygamous marriage certainly could be argued to cause harm. It cannot possibly be an equal partnership between two people. There is incalculable potential for emotional damage to the spouses and any resultant children, however much they consent to the arrangement, as well as the potential for abuse and coercion.

I am not sure, either, when talking about polygamous marriage we are discussing a mutual relationship between three people who are all involved with each other, or a man with two wives (or woman with two husbands). The first might be managed (although personally I have my doubts) but the second - I cannot see this as a logical extension of gay marriage in any way. Marriage is a commitment to one person, whatever their gender. You cannot be married to two people at once in any meaningful sense of the word.



...Hug it out!
Hey, you're not going...strange on me, are you??? Next thing you know, people will say we're in love and picking a wedding date.



Why put practicalities aside? Polygamy cannot fit into the current framework of marriage, as you have stated. Therefore allowing polygamy would change the very concept and framework of marriage which allowing gay marriage would not. So I don't see that as logical at all. Allowing two people of the same gender to the same right to marriage as two people of opposite genders - considering marriage as a union of love and support between two people and the resultant legal benefits - does not logically or necessarily lead to polygamy. I do not believe it is hypocritical to say this at all. If this is hypocritical is it not also hypocritical to allow heterosexual marriage but not gay marriage?

And if we're leaving practicalities aside, why not leave logic aside? What about the moral question? Gay marriage does not harm either those who undertake it or anyone else within society. Bigamous or polygamous marriage certainly could be argued to cause harm. It cannot possibly be an equal partnership between two people. There is incalculable potential for emotional damage to the spouses and any resultant children, however much they consent to the arrangement, as well as the potential for abuse and coercion.

I am not sure, either, when talking about polygamous marriage we are discussing a mutual relationship between three people who are all involved with each other, or a man with two wives (or woman with two husbands). The first might be managed (although personally I have my doubts) but the second - I cannot see this as a logical extension of gay marriage in any way. Marriage is a commitment to one person, whatever their gender. You cannot be married to two people at once in any meaningful sense of the word.
Well said, Thursday, and thanks! I was beginning to feel like the Lone Ranger out here! Your last point about marriage to 2 or more people not being a meaningful commitment is something too often overlooked in the discussion of polygamy.

Bigamy has never been legal in the entire history of this country. My practical viewpoint is that odds are it never will. There is no logical reason it should be.

Now if it seems inconsistant to some people to be for lifting the restriction on same-sex marriage and yet advocating the illegality of bigamy, so be it. Didn't someone once say something to the effect that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?



You seem to be arguing that since polygamy is currently considered a crime, it therefore IS a crime. It is, because it is. So, in other words, because something IS, it should continue to BE.
OK, I said I'd try to shut up, but let me clarify this one point. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying bigamy is a crime in this country; it appears to have always been a crime in this country, although I have not done a search of the law books to say so with any certainty. At any rate, it has been a crime for a long, long time, and I think it will always be a crime. But if for some reason the public someday decides bigamy is no longer a crime and remove it from the books, I'll be glad to take another look at it at that time. I doubt I'll ever be convinced bigamy is good and desirable, but if the law of the land changes, I'll accept it because we are a nation of laws and of majority rule. I believe Texas should allow same-sex marriage, but unlike the Baldwin brothers, I'm not threatening to flee to Australia just because the majority currently outvote me on this issue. That would neither logical or practical.

And I still can't see any logical connection between bigamy and same sex marriage since my cousin and her spouse have not been arrested since returning to Texas after their marriage in New England. Texas will not issue a license for same-sex marriage, but it won't arrest you if you obtain and execute such a license in another state. Texas has and will arrest bigamists, however.

Sorry. Just had to say that. didn't have a choice because that's the way I'm wired. I'll try to shut up now.



I'm sorry you feel I'm engaging in a "trick." adi presented a simple syllogism, and I concur with it . . .
This has been bothering me--I meant to respond earlier and shouldn't have let it go this long. Yoda, my reference to a "trick" was not aimed at you. I wasn't accusing you of anything off the wall in our debate. You do very well without resorting to tricks.

What I was talking about might be better described as methods rather than tricks that are ferquently used in propaganda, PR, advertising, what have you. I remember in Journalism 101 learning a dozen or more of these methods of argument, things like "glittering generalities," appeals to authority, endorsements, appeals to patriotism, religion, non sequitors, comparisions, and several others. To that was I referring, not accusing you of anything.

You've always been a gentleman and a scholar in all of our exchanges and I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I have anything but the highest regard and respect for you, even when we disagree on an issue.



Hey, you're not going...strange on me, are you??? Next thing you know, people will say we're in love and picking a wedding date.
nah, not with you being old enough to be my grandfather and all. besides, havent you had like 3? 4? 5? weddings already? You should be doggone tired of weddings and marriages by now!



nah, not with you being old enough to be my grandfather and all. besides, havent you had like 3? 4? 5? weddings already? You should be doggone tired of weddings and marriages by now!
Ouch! I keep forgetting how much younger most of this forum is. No wonder no one ever agrees with me. Thing is, I've been through your age group and remember what it was like; your challenge is to live long enough to reach mine!

I've only been married 3 times so far. What can I say--I love receptions!



Celluloid Temptation Facilitator
Ouch! I keep forgetting how much younger most of this forum is. No wonder no one ever agrees with me. Thing is, I've been through your age group and remember what it was like; your challenge is to live long enough to reach mine!

I've only been married 3 times so far. What can I say--I love receptions!
I don't know how old you are but I feel the same way often online. LOL. I'm 49 btw.

I wouldn't go back to anything before my thirties though. All those dark thoughts were quite difficult to survive. You are quite right!

__________________
Bleacheddecay



I don't know how old you are but I feel the same way often online. LOL. I'm 49 btw.

I wouldn't go back to anything before my thirties though. All those dark thoughts were quite difficult to survive. You are quite right!

I'm less than a month from my 67th birthday.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I don't know how old you are but I feel the same way often online. LOL. I'm 49 btw.
Hell I feel like that online frequently and I'm 28...



well ruf - you can console yourself with the thought that for reasons I have already stated (and that you have also expressed ad nauseum) I dont agree with polygamy now, and never will, regardless of any future change of law.

but - its great to know my math was correct! i had you pegged for late 60s, or 70 exactly. and maybe its just me, but i've always found MoFo in particular pretty mature as far as online forums go ...but then, maybe that's because i regularly slum it with the kiddies elsewhere - it keeps me honest.

bottom line? you may find differing opinions here, but youre in good company.



Off topic, sorry, but just have to say that's what I like about this place - the big range of ages, countries and lifestyles. It's lovely to read people's thoughts about films they originally saw over the course of, what ..6 decades now, and listen to their life experiences. Brilliant!



And you are as young as you feel!

Yeah, inside I'm still a bumfuzzled 17-year-old wondering what the hell happened!

Well, one of my ex-wives once told me I'm living proof one can age without maturing. The Peter Pan syndrome, I guess.



well ruf - you can console yourself with the thought that for reasons I have already stated (and that you have also expressed ad nauseum) I dont agree with polygamy now, and never will, regardless of any future change of law.

but - its great to know my math was correct! i had you pegged for late 60s, or 70 exactly. and maybe its just me, but i've always found MoFo in particular pretty mature as far as online forums go ...but then, maybe that's because i regularly slum it with the kiddies elsewhere - it keeps me honest.

bottom line? you may find differing opinions here, but youre in good company.
70!!! What you think I'm old or something????



Off topic, sorry, but just have to say that's what I like about this place - the big range of ages, countries and lifestyles. It's lovely to read people's thoughts about films they originally saw over the course of, what ..6 decades now, and listen to their life experiences. Brilliant!
I've checked out numerous boards, and none of them come close to the variety that this board has.

well ruf - you can console yourself with the thought that for reasons I have already stated (and that you have also expressed ad nauseum) I dont agree with polygamy now, and never will, regardless of any future change of law.
That's what I said many pages back. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong, good or bad. I'll say it again, if I believe that true love, a very rare thing that exists anyway, can only be shared by two people, then that's my right. I can't imagine some man swearing he loves me, and then acting the same way with another woman. No way. Sure, he doesn't have to be truly in love with a bunch of women to want to marry them all, but shouldn't he be?

but - its great to know my math was correct! i had you pegged for late 60s, or 70 exactly. and maybe its just me, but i've always found MoFo in particular pretty mature as far as online forums go ...but then, maybe that's because i regularly slum it with the kiddies elsewhere - it keeps me honest.
She's good at that. How old do you think I am, mack? Try not to look to the right of this post.

Thing is, I've been through your age group and remember what it was like; your challenge is to live long enough to reach mine!

I've only been married 3 times so far. What can I say--I love receptions!
OK, so just three wives, but many women. I've read the posts, and I think you owe it to the women of MoFo to share some photos of you during your wild and crazy times.

I know, I'm bad. I wish I could see what every MoFo looks like. It's nice to have a face to go with the font.



I think you owe it to the women of MoFo to share some photos of you during your wild and crazy times.

I'd be glad to, if I can ever figure out how to transfer a photo to one of these emails