Why are gay marriages legal but not polygamist ones?

[cinch]

Leo:

Would it be simpler to dump the whole idea of marriage and just use a cohabitation criterion for taxes and whatever else the State needs to know my marital status for?

I agree completely. Do away with legal marriage, and just have the cohabitiation thing. If people want to have a religious or secular 'marriage' ceremony on their own, that's fine. But the gov't doesn't need to be involved.

Obi:

One of the most important parts of Christianity is the definition of marriage, which both gay unions and polygamy fall outside.

Is the definition of marriage really one of the most important parts of Christianity? Did JC really make a big deal about it? Honestly, I'm asking, not arguing. Passages? I'd like to read up on it.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Most, if not all societies that allow polygamy let males have multiple wives, but not to allow females multiple husbands.

Does someone know of an example of a society allowing females to marry multiple husbands?

Yes, but I can't remember the name of the people off hand.

Part of the problem is the parity. Suppose you have 4 wives, as Moslems will allow. Would you be able to take care of all four, to not neglect, and to satisfy all their needs?

You assume only the husband cares for the family, the wives also care and share the burden. I've seen polygamist' wives interviewed and they're quite happy with the arrangement. What Muslims do is another matter...

Too many marriages already fail when the husband or wife ignores the other. Why should we increase this problem?

Then why allow marriage at all or outlaw divorce? Telling people who they can or cannot marry based on divorcees punishes the innocent because of the "guilty".

[DarthVeda]

it's harder to tax polygamy than gay marriages

[vovan]

Well, why would polygamy never be allowed? Suppose a male is allowed to have multiple wives, and a female is allowed to have multiple husbands. What happens next? Somebody will want it to be allowed to have several males and several females in the same marriage. That's where it is starting to get funky. First of all, even with couples nowadays, there is often times a lot of tension between the spouses, but suppose you had insted of one, two other husbands, and three wives? I mean, sure humans are social animals, and like to be in herds, but not to that extent.

Besides, suppose, such a group would want to divorse. How can you tell, which children belong to whom? And if you are the single male in the marriage, and every wife of yours claims that there is at least one child of hers in your family, the aliments would kill you.

Gay marriages? I don't want to start a flame war or offend any one, but I feel they shouldn't be allowed. Marriage should be done by love. Love is caused by chemical processes in the brain, which ensure reproduction. I'm sorry, but no matter how much one guy loves another one, or how often, or for how long, they won't reproduce. Thus it is unnatural to be gay. Seems kind of like mastrubation to me - you are only f-ing yourself. While I don't mind if other people do it, I don't think it should be encouraged through legalizing gay marriages.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Oh, so quick to define love. I'm sure you have information to back this up?

There's another thing that happens and is supposedly unnatural - 48% of the cases of deafness occur through unknown causes that happen while the baby is developing. Deafness is unnatural - while people who are deaf still have all the proper tools, somehow they are unable to use them.

Most scientists and geneticsists agree that there is something genetic about homosexuality.

Now tell me: if we can discriminate against a gay person because they are "unnatural", why can we not too discriminate against a deaf person?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
I'm in agreement with the general sentiment that polygamy should be legal, however distasteful it may be.

I disagree because of the inherent inequality that will inevitably result. Polygamy was once legal in China (even though only men could have multiple wives) and it was a royal mess.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yes, but I can't remember the name of the people off hand.

You're talking about pre-historical tribes.

There is one exception: one minority tribe in China still keeps the "matriarch" sort of structure. There may be other exceptions, but I do not know of them.

[Daz]

I think the discussion has somewhat drifted away from the initial idea. And the man has a good point:

If we allow gay marriages, why not allow polygamy?

The problem I see is not the marriage itself. It is the birth/adoption of children. But thats another thread that I dont dare open cause Id probably get banned....

[Berzerker]

UR -

You're talking about pre-historical tribes.

No, there is a polynesian tribe and an african tribe where women have multiple husbands and this is still the practice.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Oh, so quick to define love. I'm sure you have information to back this up?

There's another thing that happens and is supposedly unnatural - 48% of the cases of deafness occur through unknown causes that happen while the baby is developing. Deafness is unnatural - while people who are deaf still have all the proper tools, somehow they are unable to use them.

Most scientists and geneticsists agree that there is something genetic about homosexuality.

Now tell me: if we can discriminate against a gay person because they are "unnatural", why can we not too discriminate against a deaf person?

It's an excellent analogy, but I'll go you one better.

In these arguments, the anti-gay-marriage position seems always to rest on one thing: marriage should happen between people who can reproduce. That's the whole point: form a family, perpetuate society, etc. etc. And it's the only way to justify sactioning something for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

But then, my parents shouldn't have been able to marry.

See, I'm adopted. My family adopted me (and my sister) because Dad was shooting blanks and Mom was barren as the Sahara. This could have been established before they got hitched, and in at least my Mom's case it seems to be genetic (lots of history of uterus problems down her side of the family). Should they have been allowed to form a legal union with each other?

I challenge anyone to find a rational argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't also apply to heterosexuals who are infertile. Then, if they want to argue that only fertile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry, fine; but such theocratic-totalitarian fantasies are not for me, thank you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, there is a polynesian tribe and an african tribe where women have multiple husbands and this is still the practice.

As I said, pre-historic

[vovan]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
There's another thing that happens and is supposedly unnatural - 48% of the cases of deafness occur through unknown causes that happen while the baby is developing. Deafness is unnatural - while people who are deaf still have all the proper tools, somehow they are unable to use them.

Most scientists and geneticsists agree that there is something genetic about homosexuality.

Now tell me: if we can discriminate against a gay person because they are "unnatural", why can we not too discriminate against a deaf person?

The analogy is fairly good, but a little flawed and kind of supports my point. First of all, yes, deafness is unnatural. But deafness occurs by misfortune, while homosexuality is in about half the cases by choice. Thus, you can't compare the two... disabilities. (It's your analogy, not mine.)

Now, let's for a second assume that all homosexuality is defined by the genes. (Of which I hope you alse have some proof you could show.) Well, then I am not syaing we need to "discriminate" against them. But, back to your analogy, you wouldn't give the deaf free opera tickets, because if you don't, they would be discriminated against, now would you? In the same way, you wouldn't encourage marriage between gay couples.

[Dauphin]

I don't see why they don't just get rid of legal marriages altogether.

If you want to declare your love, sure have a ceremony and the like. If you want legal recognition of status (e.g. legal rights normally associated with marriage) then I don't see why you can't sign papers that give that status to anyone you choose.

[mapfi]

What's the intent behind marriage? If you see it's purpose to fruitfully multiply (have children), then there's no sense in gay marriages unless you allow adopting.
I, however, see marriage as a legal institution for a psychological bond between people. Most people strive for a partner, few want to be alone. Therefore the state should provide some form of acknowledging that fact, after all the state's there to serve people. There's no need to make opposite sex a requirement. In the same reasoning polygamy should be possible if it's people's wish but all people involved - multiple marriage however can disrespect the wishes of someone

A word to those argueing with their beliefs - you're entitled to your opinion based on beliefs. Above all, however, should stand tolerance - that is living your life like you want it and let other people live their life like they want without getting in each others way.

[St Leo]

Polygamy was once legal in China (even though only men could have multiple wives) and it was a royal mess.

That's not polygamy. That's polygyny.