I am okay with that, too, to a certain extent. I am concerned about the children of wife 2, 3 and so on. Are they considered legitimate? How does child support work? If the mothers receive support or all parties live in the same home, are the "sister wives" then eligible to apply for welfare?
Aside from your assertions, do you have any arguments to support that position? No? Then try to address mine. The issue, as I keep trying to explain to you, is that when you bust the definition of marriage, you lose control over what is and isn't a marriage. For the last 5,000 years, marriage was the union of a man and a woman, at least in the west. In the east, it was the union of one man and at least one woman, but it didn't have to be. But it was never the union of two men, or two women. The redefinition of marriage doesn't legitimize gay marriages, it simply erodes the definition of marriage. The arguments used to erode it, the presumption of discrimination and the equal "right" to marry whoever or whatever you want to, are just as applicable to polygamy. You can deny it all you like, but as I said before, once you break the dam, you have no control over what comes in with the flood.
I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.
I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.
On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.
To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?
Last edited by m00; 04-21-2012 at 01:26 AM.
I don't think more benefits should be given to someone because of their marital status whatever it is, your benefits and pay should be based on your ability and value as an employee and as far as government goes every adult should pay the same percentage in taxes based on income not based on marital status, class, or anything else.
Let's face it, polygamy is just a really bad idea. I mean how many times a day is a guy expected to have to say, "shut your pie hole"?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|