PDA

View Full Version : Canada Man Charged With Polygamy to Use Gay Marriage Defense



FlaGator
01-22-2009, 10:59 PM
We all knew that this was bound to happen


VANCOUVER, British Columbia The lawyer for a British Columbia man charged with having 20 wives says he'll use the same-sex marriage law as a defense.

The lawyer, Blair Suffredine, says gays can marry in Canada, so why can't a man have more than one wife. The lawyer says standards have changed.

He's representing 52-year-old Winson Blackmore, leader of a polygamous group in Bountiful, in southeastern British Columbia.

He appeared in court briefly yesterday in Creston and the case was continued to Feb. 18.

Another man from a rival polygamous group in Bountiful, James Oler, also appeared in court, charged with marrying two women. Oler is a follower of Warren Jeffs and a bishop in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.



Found this article here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481308,00.html)

PoliCon
01-22-2009, 11:28 PM
there are challeneges to incest laws in Australia and right around the corner is a challenge to age limits. Nope. No slippery slope here . . . .

Ringo
01-23-2009, 08:51 AM
We all knew that this was bound to happen



Found this article here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481308,00.html)

Whats the problem ?

There isn't two men getting married.

There are only men and women involved in the story. The slipery slope seems to be marriage it'self.

Lars1701a
01-23-2009, 08:54 AM
Whats the problem ?

There isn't two men getting married.

There are only men and women involved in the story. The slipery slope seems to be marriage it'self.


Marriage is between 1 man and 1 women GET IT?

Goldwater
01-23-2009, 08:58 AM
Just sounds like some douche whos blatantly guilty looking for any way out.

Ringo
01-23-2009, 09:02 AM
Just sounds like some douche whos blatantly guilty looking for any way out.

Thats EXACTLY what it is.

But the hacks on this board will use it as a battle cry against gay marriage....how very typical.

Lars1701a
01-23-2009, 09:05 AM
Thats EXACTLY what it is.

But the hacks on this board will use it as a battle cry against gay marriage....how very typical.

Or its a guy trying to get his twisted lifestyle enacted into law by the courts just like gays did.

Ringo
01-23-2009, 09:08 AM
Or its a guy trying to get his twisted lifestyle enacted into law by the courts just like gays did.

LOL When did the gays in Canada try and get their "twisted lifestyle" enacted into law ?

wilbur
01-23-2009, 09:08 AM
Or its a guy trying to get his twisted lifestyle enacted into law by the courts just like gays did.

Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions.

Lars1701a
01-23-2009, 09:18 AM
Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions.

So did the ones for gay marriage until enough fags cried to a court and made it legal. One day a court will make polygamy legal. .

PoliCon
01-23-2009, 10:01 AM
Just sounds like some douche whos blatantly guilty looking for any way out.

And how is that any different from a couple of dildos who are guilty and looking to justify their degenerate relationship?

PoliCon
01-23-2009, 10:02 AM
Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions. Guess again. Gay marriage is the wedge that these groups are using to justify their own deviancy.

Gingersnap
01-23-2009, 10:11 AM
Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions.

That isn't the position of litigants around the world. The drive to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to two men or two women is very much being seen as an opportunity to enlarge definition more. There are pending cases in several countries to include group marriages or incestuous couples in the marriage definition.

I would rather see domestic partnerships become legal. Leave marriage to the heterosexual couples but allow anybody to receive the same legal rights as married couples if they can demonstrate a common residential and financial interest.

Domestic partnerships are much more inclusive than marriage since there is no need to recognize any sexual or romantic interests of the parties involved. If they are banging each other, fine, but if they are just interested in securing a certain financial and emotional stability, that's fine too. DPs could cover couples or groups of any composition. I would want the children of any of these couplings to only have the biological parents recognized as parents, however. The biological parents could designate a guardian from the group if the parents died, of course.

This would also offer an opportunity to totally rethink the legal debts and obligations one party owes another party in a common living arrangement.

wilbur
01-23-2009, 10:14 AM
Guess again. Gay marriage is the wedge that these groups are using to justify their own deviancy.

What groups? This is one guy, actually.... who probably has a pretty slim-to-none chance here anyhow. I'm really thinking this board should be renamed to "Imagination Land".

Maybe some will say that since gay marriage is allowed, they should be allowed too... it doesn't make it a good reason (it isn't), one that anyone has to listen too. Incest and polygamy themselves are unique from one another and also from gay marriage. They have unique consequences and unique arguments for/against.

wilbur
01-23-2009, 10:15 AM
That isn't the position of litigants around the world. The drive to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to two men or two women is very much being seen as an opportunity to enlarge definition more. There are pending cases in several countries to include group marriages or incestuous couples in the marriage definition.


This anything different than whats been going on for ages though?



I would rather see domestic partnerships become legal. Leave marriage to the heterosexual couples but allow anybody to receive the same legal rights as married couples if they can demonstrate a common residential and financial interest.

Domestic partnerships are much more inclusive than marriage since there is no need to recognize any sexual or romantic interests of the parties involved. If they are banging each other, fine, but if they are just interested in securing a certain financial and emotional stability, that's fine too. DPs could cover couples or groups of any composition. I would want the children of any of these couplings to only have the biological parents recognized as parents, however. The biological parents could designate a guardian from the group if the parents died, of course.

This would also offer an opportunity to totally rethink the legal debts and obligations one party owes another party in a common living arrangement.

I am fantasizing right there along with you on this part though Ginger;)

jediab
01-23-2009, 10:20 AM
When you change the definition of a word to suit your own personal needs, you can not prevent others from doing the same. Polygamy will become legal because marriage was changed to fit soneone else's idea.

Gingersnap
01-23-2009, 10:23 AM
I am fantasizing right there along with you on this part though Ginger;)

It's not a fantasy. I voted for DPs in Colorado a couple of years ago. It lost and it didn't include a provision for more than two people but it offered the same legal benefits as marriage absent any recognition or interest in the sexual behavior of the parties involved. ;)

wilbur
01-23-2009, 10:25 AM
When you change the definition of a word to suit your own personal needs, you can not prevent others from doing the same. Polygamy will become legal because marriage was changed to fit soneone else's idea.

The institution of marriage has hardly been the same thing for any length of time during its existence.

Polygamy is interesting since it actually HAS been a part of the institution of marriage all throughout history. It is actively practised today, in MARRIAGE, just not here (legally anyhow)... removing polygamy from marriage was just as much of a radical idea at one time, as allowing gay marriage is today

jediab
01-23-2009, 10:50 AM
The institution of marriage has hardly been the same thing for any length of time during its existence.

Polygamy is interesting since it actually HAS been a part of the institution of marriage all throughout history. It is actively practised today, in MARRIAGE, just not here (legally anyhow)... removing polygamy from marriage was just as much of a radical idea at one time, as allowing gay marriage is today

Marriage, as legally defined in the West for a few hundred years has been between 1 man and 1 woman. It is now been legally changed in many countries, based on someone else's definition to include 2 men or 2 women. In places where ploygamy is illegal, but gay marriage is legal, it's only a matter of time before the definiation of marriage is changed again to suit soneone else's idea of what the word should mean. Like I said, if it was done for one, it has to be done for another.

wilbur
01-23-2009, 10:59 AM
Marriage, as legally defined in the West for a few hundred years has been between 1 man and 1 woman. It is now been legally changed in many countries, based on someone else's definition to include 2 men or 2 women. In places where ploygamy is illegal, but gay marriage is legal, it's only a matter of time before the definiation of marriage is changed again to suit soneone else's idea of what the word should mean. Like I said, if it was done for one, it has to be done for another.

No, it absolutely does not. Are you saying the only good, solid reason holding back polygamy or incestuous marriage is simply the fact that we haven't changed marriage for a long time?

When laws were devised against polygamy, do you think lawmakers were trying to justify them by saying "Well.... we don't let homosexuals marry, therefore polygamists can't have their way either."

biccat
01-23-2009, 11:32 AM
What groups? This is one guy, actually.... who probably has a pretty slim-to-none chance here anyhow. I'm really thinking this board should be renamed to "Imagination Land".

Maybe some will say that since gay marriage is allowed, they should be allowed too... it doesn't make it a good reason (it isn't), one that anyone has to listen too. Incest and polygamy themselves are unique from one another and also from gay marriage. They have unique consequences and unique arguments for/against.

Please provide a unique argument against polygamy that cannot be used as an argument against same-sex marriage.

hmac
01-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Let's not throw "fag" around. That's hateful. The issue people seem to be hard on is the sactity of marriage, not just marriage as a "business deal". People are passionate about the sactity of marriage as it was written to be between 1 man and 1 woman in the natural order (natural as in a man has a penis and woman a vagina...sorry had to put that in). Marriage was created in the natural order and for the purpose of a complete family for children, financial stability and god given companiionship. Civil Unions may need to be rewritten for homosexuals and whatever other noncomforming unions may be out there. Just leave "marriage" alone. The idea is that once you start changing the rules, then everyone wants to change all the rules. Hence the Poligamy issue and incest issue. If it's ok for non-traditional gays to marry, then why not multiple women and why not a with a minor. That's the freakin point. And look, people are already trying to see what they can get away with. It can lead to the fall of a civil society.


So did the ones for gay marriage until enough fags cried to a court and made it legal. One day a court will make polygamy legal. .

Lars1701a
01-23-2009, 12:19 PM
Let's not throw "fag" around. That's hateful. The issue people seem to be hard on is the sactity of marriage, not just marriage as a "business deal". People are passionate about the sactity of marriage as it was written to be between 1 man and 1 woman in the natural order (natural as in a man has a penis and woman a vagina...sorry had to put that in). Marriage was created in the natural order and for the purpose of a complete family for children, financial stability and god given companiionship. Civil Unions may need to be rewritten for homosexuals and whatever other noncomforming unions may be out there. Just leave "marriage" alone. The idea is that once you start changing the rules, then everyone wants to change all the rules. Hence the Poligamy issue and incest issue. If it's ok for non-traditional gays to marry, then why not multiple women and why not a with a minor. That's the freakin point. And look, people are already trying to see what they can get away with. It can lead to the fall of a civil society.

Sorry if the term fag offends your but I call a spade a spade.

wilbur
01-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Let's not throw "fag" around. That's hateful. The issue people seem to be hard on is the sactity of marriage, not just marriage as a "business deal". People are passionate about the sactity of marriage as it was written to be between 1 man and 1 woman in the natural order (natural as in a man has a penis and woman a vagina...sorry had to put that in). Marriage was created in the natural order and for the purpose of a complete family for children, financial stability and god given companiionship. Civil Unions may need to be rewritten for homosexuals and whatever other noncomforming unions may be out there. Just leave "marriage" alone. The idea is that once you start changing the rules, then everyone wants to change all the rules. Hence the Poligamy issue and incest issue. If it's ok for non-traditional gays to marry, then why not multiple women and why not a with a minor. That's the freakin point. And look, people are already trying to see what they can get away with. It can lead to the fall of a civil society.

Why would opening the door to gay marriage cause us to suddenly be unable to justify all our long thought out rules on ages of consent?

Lars1701a
01-23-2009, 12:42 PM
Why would opening the door to gay marriage cause us to suddenly be unable to justify all our long thought out rules on ages of consent?

Why the fuck does everything have to be a argument with you?

wilbur
01-23-2009, 12:43 PM
Please provide a unique argument against polygamy that cannot be used as an argument against same-sex marriage.

Here's a very well thought out one:



The question has achieved a certain topicality because of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. One of the standard objections to such marriage is that if homosexual marriage is permitted, why not polygamous marriage? The basic argument for homosexual marriage is that it promotes the welfare of homosexual couples without hurting anybody else. That seems to be equally the case for polygamous marriage.

But is it? My view is that polygamy would impose substantial social costs in a modern Western-type society that probably would not be offset by the benefits to the parties to polygamous marriages. (For elaboration, see my book Sex and Reason (1992), particularly Chapter 9.) Especially given the large disparities in wealth in the United States, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives, even harems, which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. Moreover, intense competition for women would lower the age of marriage for women, which would be likely to result in less investment by them in education (because household production is a substitute for market production) and therefore reduce women's market output.

Of course, forbidding the wealthy to buy a particular commodity is usually inferior to taxation as a method of reducing inequality. Yet we do forbid the buying of votes, which could be thought a parallel device to forbidding the "buying" of wives: one vote, one wife. We think that vote buying would have undesirable political consequences. So might polygamy. In societies in which polygamy is permitted without any limitation on the number of wives, wealthy households become clans, since all the children of a polygamous household are related through having the same father, no matter how many different mothers they have. These clans can become so powerful as to threaten the state's monopoly of political power; this is one of the historical reasons for the abolition of polygamy, though it would be unlikely to pose a serious danger to the stability of American government.

...


Edit: Oops, here's a link: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/10/should_polygamy.html

wilbur
01-23-2009, 12:54 PM
Why the fuck does everything have to be a argument with you?

Its somewhat cathartic for one.. and we are on a message board, typically where one engages in debates. I understand some of you simply use it as a way to reinforce your existing beliefs with each other.. but to me, that's pretty useless.

And honestly, some of the things that simply get thrown around and accepted as unalterable truths are simply appalling. How intellectually dishonest can we be to say that gay marriage automatically justifies polygamy, incest, and least of all paedophilia marriages? The other favourite is to suggest it will open the door to legalized marrying of animals or inanimate objects. These arent unanswered arguments... and never have been. If you want to make your cases for such things its time to move beyond the lowest common denominator rhetorical fluff, and actually make a case... this other fluff is simply false on its face. Its tragic to see so many accept them barely a moments thought.

biccat
01-23-2009, 12:56 PM
If the problem with polygamous marriage is that it would reduce the supply of women, how is this not an argument against homosexual marriage?

Male-male marriage reduces the number of college educated fashionable men available for women to marry.

Likewise, female-female marriage reduces the number of mullet-wearing biker chicks available for men to marry.

Furthermore, none of these problems exist in the current system. A wealthy man can have 15 "girlfriends" at a time if he so desires, and have children from each of them. And those children, being related by their father, could then form the basis for a clan to "threaten the state's monopoly of political power". But we don't see that happening.

In short, the argument is bunk.

jediab
01-23-2009, 01:03 PM
No, it absolutely does not. Are you saying the only good, solid reason holding back polygamy or incestuous marriage is simply the fact that we haven't changed marriage for a long time?

When laws were devised against polygamy, do you think lawmakers were trying to justify them by saying "Well.... we don't let homosexuals marry, therefore polygamists can't have their way either."

Yes it does. Or you have become the very hateful, bigoted people that you and others claim exsist with the anti-gay marriage crowd.

The law makers made the laws based upon what they viewed it best for families and society. It was 1 man and 1 woman not directly related. Now it has been opened up to individual interpretation. You can not allow one but deny another. To do that would be hypocritical, and make you a polygaphobe.

PoliCon
01-23-2009, 01:07 PM
Why the fuck does everything have to be a argument with you?because he is VASTLY superior to the rest of us. :rolleyes: in his own mind at least . . . .

wilbur
01-23-2009, 01:14 PM
Yes it does. Or you have become the very hateful, bigoted people that you and others claim exsist with the anti-gay marriage crowd.

The law makers made the laws based upon what they viewed it best for families and society. It was 1 man and 1 woman not directly related. Now it has been opened up to individual interpretation. You can not allow one but deny another. To do that would be hypocritical, and make you a polygaphobe.

Again, it seems to be that you simply think there are no reasons against polygamy or incest... think about this... no reasons at all against them, except for the fact that we haven't changed marriage for a long time.

If that's the case, why so adamant about not allowing them?

wilbur
01-23-2009, 01:18 PM
If the problem with polygamous marriage is that it would reduce the supply of women, how is this not an argument against homosexual marriage?

Male-male marriage reduces the number of college educated fashionable men available for women to marry.

Likewise, female-female marriage reduces the number of mullet-wearing biker chicks available for men to marry.


Assuming the percentages of gay men and women are statistically similar, this really wouldn't be an issue would it?



Furthermore, none of these problems exist in the current system. A wealthy man can have 15 "girlfriends" at a time if he so desires, and have children from each of them. And those children, being related by their father, could then form the basis for a clan to "threaten the state's monopoly of political power". But we don't see that happening.

In short, the argument is bunk.

Gee, that sounds like an argument FOR gay marriage.

But there is plenty of historical precedent to suggest that those sorts of things happen in polygamist societies.

Gingersnap
01-23-2009, 01:18 PM
In short, the argument is bunk.


As outlined in Wilbur's post, it certainly is. Marriage has already undergone an enormous status loss as a result of cohabitation, single motherhood, and no-fault divorce. The arguments against group marriage today in a Western industrialized country center mostly around welfare fraud and age-of-consent issues.

Since marriage itself is declining and since there no longer an automatic expectation that heterosexual children will enter any kind of marriage, the arguments made by the writer don't apply to us as they would to societies where social roles and reproduction "rights" are rigidly enforced.

wilbur
01-23-2009, 01:28 PM
As outlined in Wilbur's post, it certainly is. Marriage has already undergone an enormous status loss as a result of cohabitation, single motherhood, and no-fault divorce. The arguments against group marriage today in a Western industrialized country center mostly around welfare fraud and age-of-consent issues.

Since marriage itself is declining and since there no longer an automatic expectation that heterosexual children will enter any kind of marriage, the arguments made by the writer don't apply to us as they would to societies where social roles and reproduction "rights" are rigidly enforced.

I don't see any reason to be so dismissive of it.

In many respects, the gender equality of the west would make any attempts at polygamy pretty experimental... it might turn into something we haven't seen before or would never expect.

However, the argument is a reasonable concern, and does not also apply to gay marriage. The rest of the article has several other lines of argument which also do not apply to gay marriage.... all of which are considerably stronger arguments than to rely on some slippery slope argument about the redefinition of marriage. That's all I was attempting to illustrate. Gay marriage and polygamy are radically different arrangements... its silly to think that arguments for one necessarily apply to the other.

jediab
01-23-2009, 01:37 PM
Again, it seems to be that you simply think there are no reasons against polygamy or incest... think about this... no reasons at all against them, except for the fact that we haven't changed marriage for a long time.

If that's the case, why so adamant about not allowing them?

Since you dont seem to get my point, I will try to shorten this for you so maybe you can understand. Allowing gay marriage to be legal means that any other type of marriage will have to be allowed, even if you are for them or not. Which is what that man in Canada is trying to argue.

wiegenlied
01-23-2009, 01:46 PM
The question has achieved a certain topicality because of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. One of the standard objections to such marriage is that if homosexual marriage is permitted, why not polygamous marriage? The basic argument for homosexual marriage is that it promotes the welfare of homosexual couples without hurting anybody else. That seems to be equally the case for polygamous marriage.

But is it? My view is that polygamy would impose substantial social costs in a modern Western-type society that probably would not be offset by the benefits to the parties to polygamous marriages. (For elaboration, see my book Sex and Reason (1992), particularly Chapter 9.) Especially given the large disparities in wealth in the United States, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives, even harems, which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. Moreover, intense competition for women would lower the age of marriage for women, which would be likely to result in less investment by them in education (because household production is a substitute for market production) and therefore reduce women's market output.

Of course, forbidding the wealthy to buy a particular commodity is usually inferior to taxation as a method of reducing inequality. Yet we do forbid the buying of votes, which could be thought a parallel device to forbidding the "buying" of wives: one vote, one wife. We think that vote buying would have undesirable political consequences. So might polygamy. In societies in which polygamy is permitted without any limitation on the number of wives, wealthy households become clans, since all the children of a polygamous household are related through having the same father, no matter how many different mothers they have. These clans can become so powerful as to threaten the state's monopoly of political power; this is one of the historical reasons for the abolition of polygamy, though it would be unlikely to pose a serious danger to the stability of American government.

That is not well-thoughtful arguments. Women (and likewise men) are not a commodity and therefore the law of supply and demand doesn't apply.

wilbur
01-23-2009, 01:58 PM
Since you dont seem to get my point, I will try to shorten this for you so maybe you can understand. Allowing gay marriage to be legal means that any other type of marriage will have to be allowed, even if you are for them or not.

Sorry my friend, I understand your point completely, as its a trivially easy one to understand... but its bogus.

You are saying that, since one specific arrangement is now allowed under the law, all possible arrangements must also be allowed under the law.. without consideration of their merrits or lack-there-of individually.... the arrangements themselves may be completely dissimilar, and have completely dissimilar consequences... so why does accepting one necessarily make us accept the other?

Lets apply your logic to gun control... if we loosen the restrictions on the types of firearms one is allowed to own, does that then mean we automatically open the door for someone to own ballistic missiles or chemical weapons?

FlaGator
01-23-2009, 02:44 PM
Its somewhat cathartic for one.. and we are on a message board, typically where one engages in debates. I understand some of you simply use it as a way to reinforce your existing beliefs with each other.. but to me, that's pretty useless.

And honestly, some of the things that simply get thrown around and accepted as unalterable truths are simply appalling. How intellectually dishonest can we be to say that gay marriage automatically justifies polygamy, incest, and least of all paedophilia marriages? The other favourite is to suggest it will open the door to legalized marrying of animals or inanimate objects. These arent unanswered arguments... and never have been. If you want to make your cases for such things its time to move beyond the lowest common denominator rhetorical fluff, and actually make a case... this other fluff is simply false on its face. Its tragic to see so many accept them barely a moments thought.


For one I never said that the legalization of same-sex marriage automatically justifies the other deviations. However, should same-sex marriage become the law of the land the other 'alternative lifestyles' will use it as the basis to legally justify their postions and some will find a judge or two willing to agree with them. The marriage of one man and one women does not automatically justify the right of same-sex marriage but it is used as the basis to legalize same-sex weddings. Did you really think that same-sex marriages would be used similarly for other variants?

Phillygirl
01-23-2009, 02:49 PM
Why wouldn't the same arguments used to indicate that same sex marriage is legally appropriate, also be used to argue that polygamy is legally appropriate?

Gingersnap
01-23-2009, 02:57 PM
Gay marriage and polygamy are radically different arrangements... its silly to think that arguments for one necessarily apply to the other.

It's not silly at all in our current cultural environment. The points the writer makes stem from a utilitarian view of society and one that is informed by social pressures that either don't exist for most decision-makers or are very low priority.

Additionally, courts and legislators don't necessarily make law according to any strictly rational societal cost/benefit analysis. Marriage law is certainly not governed that way in our culture.

The objections the writer poses would be trivial concerns at best. Extremely wealthy men in our culture seek to actively limit their own reproductive success since clans of kin diminish wealth for us, they don't advance it. Wealthy men see a material benefit in one wife since serial wives, let alone multiple wives, constitute a substantial threat to wealth in the event of a divorce or even a break-up. This is why the very wealthy have lower divorce rates than the working class. Wealthy men have little trouble finding desirable bedmates outside of marriage. The bedmates they do find are already unavailable to the average working man.

Women who enter group marriages have substantially different expectations in terms of sex and attention than women looking for a traditional marriage. They are largely unmoved by issues of emotional or physical equity that would concern feminist ideology. Remember, in this culture women no longer feel much pressure to marry at all. Those looking for a group marriage don't reflect the concerns or interests of the average woman.

In terms of child-rearing, the writer is simply wrong. The courts have long ago determined that the physical and emotional impact of fatherhood on a child's development is pretty much nil unless it's actively abusive. If millions of single women can raise children without fathers, then this objection is pointless.

So we are back to the only important objections: welfare fraud and (in a few circumstances) age-of-consent.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-23-2009, 07:00 PM
Arguments for/against polygamy, and incest stand on their own. Gay marriage doesnt weaken or strengthen those positions.


They are IDENTICAL arguments. Why can't consenting adults who love each have the same rights as more traditional relationships??

wilbur
01-23-2009, 11:45 PM
They are IDENTICAL arguments. Why can't consenting adults who love each have the same rights as more traditional relationships??

Well, ok... make your best argument against polygamy, and we'll see if it applies to gay marriage.

Sorry, gay marriage is functionally no different than heterosexual marriage except the genders of the participants. No new laws need t o be ironed out, no new policy needs to be created. Not quite the case with polygamy.... the legal cluster fuck of trying to determine inheritance, divorce, etc is reason enough to consider it a bad idea.

biccat
01-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Assuming the percentages of gay men and women are statistically similar, this really wouldn't be an issue would it?
So lets go ahead and assume the number of polygamist women (1 woman, several husbands) and men (1 man, several wives) is statistically similar. Problem solved.


Gee, that sounds like an argument FOR gay marriage.

But there is plenty of historical precedent to suggest that those sorts of things happen in polygamist societies.
I agree that if polygamy is legalized then there's really no argument against gay marriage. Or incest, beastiality, age of consent laws, or any other restrictions we place on marriage.

There's plenty of historical precedent that homosexuals shouldn't marry, why isn't that enough for gay marriage?