Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Ming]

Anybody that argues that polygamy and same sex marriages are identical should have their IQ checked. And I personally have no problem with gay marriages. All power to you. Gays should have the same rights as everybody else.

However... if we are talking specifically about the rights of people who love each other gettting married, there is indeed a similarity here. If the argument for gay marriages is the "RIGHT" of consenting adults to enjoy the same rights as everybody else...

Polygamy has a strong history, and is still an accepted practice by many religions in parts of the world. And yes, the practice has been abused throughout history, with women sometimes not having a say in the matter.

But frankly, if all the persons involved are consenting adults, and really love each other, and have no problem with multiple husbands or wives, who am I to say it's not right.

I'm not trolling, and I'm certainly not calling anybody a hypocrit. I just think that if the whole argument is based on the rights of consenting adults to get married, and be offered the same protection under the law as a straight couple... polygamy should be allowed as well.

Are they the same fight... no... are all the issues identical... no.

I have no problem with either.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anybody that argues that polygamy and same sex marriages are identical should have their IQ checked.

No one is arguing that they're "identical", you ****.

In Drake's universe, Martin Luther King Jr. was a bigoted hypocrite because he advocated for legal interracial marriage while probably opposing polygamous marriage.

Re-legalizing interracial marriage didn't change the traditional definition of marriage; it just removed the racist laws that got passed to restrict traditional marriage in the United States. Gay marriage and polygamy, on the other hand, do change the traditional definition of marriage, gay marriage moreso than polygamy...

[MrFun]

One could argue that legal interracial marriage DID change the traditional definition of LEGAL marriage because before interracial marriages were legally recongized, legal marriage was DEFINED as between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman.

[Drake Tungsten]

One could argue that legal interracial marriage DID change the traditional definition of LEGAL marriage because before interracial marriages were legally recongized, legal marriage was DEFINED as between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman.

No, it wasn't. Barring interracial marriage was very much an exception to the historical norm (as well as international norms at the time). This is demonstrated by the fact that the American colonies had to pass laws to prevent interracial marriage, as it had been legal and ok up until that point.

No one has ever had to pass a law making gay marriage illegal until the very recent past, however, because there's never been any gay marriage in the past. It has no historical precedent. Polygamy, on the other hand, does have a historical and international precedent. Really, we should be legalizing polygamy first if we're going to start messing around with marriage.

[rah]

Well since such a small percentage of americans approve of Polygamy, I doubt that will be happening in the near future.

[Drake Tungsten]

A similarly small percentage supported gay marriage a decade ago. The opposition to polygamy in America will fall as we educate the American public about the shocking similarities between the civil rights struggle and the struggle for multiple wives/husbands. Or, more likely, as more of the American public sees Big Love.

[Q Classic]

Or, more likely, as more of the American public sees Big Love.

Just like how people realized that being gay was okay after seeing Oz The L Word Will and Grace.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't be a dumbass. Will and Grace clearly broke down the barrier for gays.

Note: That thumbs up is approving of the breaking down of barriers for gays, not approving Will and Grace.

[Q Classic]

Are you sure it wasn't Oz?

[Heraclitus]

Actually, while we are on the subject; from an ethical point of view I see no difference between the (theoretically not, but practically yes) anti-gay sodomy laws of old and today's incest laws.


In both cases it is an uncalled for intervention of the state into the love life of two consenting adults.

I have read recently that 2% of women have attempted or have had sexual intercourse with a close relative (that means for example 20 girls from my old high school), 10% have had some kind of sexual contact with a relative (that means 5 of my female classmates in college).



Ethically, logically there is no difference. The truth is the public is the hypocrite. The activists are smart and adapt to this. That is why a gay activist (I remember reading this on wikipedia) said that he was insulted by comparing the fight for gay rights with the fight for the rights of incestus couples. If he has half a brain, he knows there is no real difference, but needs to for the sake of making some progress deny this.


Incest laws will be seen as archaic as anti-homosexual laws (those making it a crime to engage in homosexual acts) in 20 years time if the current trends persist.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Incest may owe some of its lasting criminalization to the correlation with non-consensual abuse within a family.

If you're talking about adult-to-adult incestuous relationships, then, it's conceptually possible that there may be a non-abusive relationship. But in most families there will be a long period of time when one party will be a minor entrusted to the partial (eg sibling) or complete (eg parent) care of the elder, and if a sexual relationship develops then the state's interest in protecting a minor kicks in, overriding individual rights.

Even after a family member becomes a legal adult, if they've been in an abusive relationship then it's a legal fallacy to assume they can break out of it and assert their own rights.

While I agree with your point philosophically, when it comes down to applicability of the law, I don't think we'll be seeing the lifting of incest laws anytime soon - even though it is increasingly looking like a law of half-measures. But who knows? It very possibly prevents far more hazards than the benefits it curtails.


Edit: Also there are traditional reasons against it, probably due in part to societal norms and the historical risk of birth defects. Given modern advances in medicine and contraception, neither of these reasons is nearly as strong (in my opinion) as the higher risk of unreported intra-family sexual abuse.

[Heraclitus]

1. The current laws make sex with between say an adult male and his biolgical mother which had no part in his upbringing ilegal or between a sister and her brother who was put up for adpotion. Make it ilegall for th e child's guardian (who in most cases will still be the biological parents) to have sex with him (regardless of their age, say a foster parent can't have sex with his wards even 30 years later), if that is your concern.

2. Sex in modern society is mostly for pleasure or emotional reasons, reproduction is a less used function (few such couples would reproduce, not only because of the social stigma but for the same reason people with severe gentic defects (that are a aware of them) on average reproduce less often. Also studies have shown that the genetic defects are exagerated.

3. I can off the top of my head think of several other Eugenic policies that would provide better results and curtail no more liberty than the anti-incest laws.

4. Traditional reasons against it? You do realize we are in a thread talking about support for gay marriage right?

[Monk]

1. The current laws make sex with between say an adult male and his bilogical mother which had no part in his upbringing ilegal or between a sister and her brother who was put up for adpotion.

Are you sure on the last part? As far as I know, genes don't mean a thing legally speaking if the kid was adopted.

(Edit: I misread you, I think - you were presumably talking about a brother adopted into the family, not out of it.)

[Monk]

Oh, and that aside, whatever happened to Ben? Are you there, dude? I'm just thinking about the reason for your lack of response to my (actual) questions.

[MrFun]

if we're going to start MESSING around with marriage.

Finally - I got you to admit the truth of how you really feel about equal marriage rights for gays. You're opposed to it.