I knew better. I plead temporary insanity.

...and if the slope is slippery, you have one of those "slippery slopes" on which to slide...

--imm

a man will want to marry his dog.

and I should be able to use him as a tax deduction.

If people want plural marriages let them. It would be extremely hard for me to care less if a family moved next door and there was one daddy and three mommies or two daddies and two mommies or whatever. I don't care as long as everyone is cared for and the kids are well behaved.

One reason gay marriage works well in a liberal democracy is that it adds a bare minimum of legal and emotional variables to domestic relationships. It preserves personal exclusivity and no one is being denied their civil rights in order to make domestic tranquility possible for the families that "belong" to wealthy acquisitive males.

Gay marriage also works as a movement because gay people have been flat out denied participation in the institution of marriage.

OTOH, would-be polygamists want more of what they've already got.

If we are going by "bare minimum" then you should be against Gay Marriage as well. Making no changes to law is simpler than doing what is right. Denying people rights because it would be a hassle is a very bad reasoning that could be used to deny a myriad of people their rights.

Further, saying that polygamists "want more of what they already got" sounds alot like telling Homosexuals that "they want more of what they already got cause they have the right to marry anyone that they want so long as they are of the opposite sex."

My problem with polygamy is that to my understanding communities who embrace it often fall into patterns of polygyny and abuse. If this is shown to be wrong then I have no issues.

So long as its between consenting adults and does not hurt anyone, you should be able to marry whoever and how ever many spouses as you want.

Polygamy dilutes that intimacy and undivided attention, turning marriage into something fundamentally different. If you take the position that limiting the number of spouses to one is an "injustice", then a liberal society must eventually follow the conclusion that *any* limit on the number of spouses must also be an "injustice"... whole towns could wind up married to each other.

Well then I guess one can make a lot of non-comparable positions sound a lot alike--even if some of them have 3X as many syllables and ignore concepts like love and attraction, which on this topic is a whopper so I have to congratulate you for trying so hard.

As for your comment about the 'hassle', I personally don't find your glib dismissal of the mountain of legal and financial confusion resulting from legalized polygamy to be particularly conscientious or apt. On top of that, there is the insensitivity of putting millions of otherwise monogamous couples into a situation where a person can try to pressure their spouse to accept a third person into their sexual, emotional, legal and financial life... and do so legally.

Marriage is about intimacy, attentiveness and exclusivity. These are in large part why most people agree with gay marriage... because those qualities are retained. But polygamy would hurt all three.

Finally, the law in many places didn't define marriage as being only heterosexual. But it has indeed defined marriage as monogamous. Gays aren't trying to alter the established structure of marriage in our society, while polygamists are.

How does it dilute intimacy? Lets say I marry 2 spouses, does loving one decrease the love I have for the other? Does having a kid mean that suddenly I lose that intimacy I had with my spouse? Kids also take away from attention. Should we outlaw kids?

If a whole town was deeply in love with each so what? Of course, that example is absurd and guilty of a slippery slope fallacy.

"Well then I guess one can make a lot of non-comparable positions sound a lot alike--even if some of them have 3X as many syllables and ignore concepts like love and attraction, which on this topic is a whopper so I have to congratulate you for trying so hard."

I think they are very comparable. In both cases the argument is trying to exclude someone one type of marriage because you have access to this other type of marriage. Its trying to use a technicality to deny someone the ability to marry another consenting adult.

"As for your comment about the 'hassle', I personally don't find your glib dismissal of the mountain of legal and financial confusion resulting from legalized polygamy to be particularly conscientious or apt. On top of that, there is the insensitivity of putting millions of otherwise monogamous couples into a situation where a person can try to pressure their spouse to accept a third person into their sexual, emotional, legal and financial life... and do so legally. "

It wasn't glib. I have thought about it before. Its like someone arguing against gay marriage because it would cost the taxpapers more money in benefits. In NZ, its going to take 4 months before the marriage equality takes place because they have to change infrastructure. There are hassles that will have to be addressed here as well. Are they as big of hassles as it would be with polygamy? No. But they are still hassles.

So going by the it would be a hassle logic NZ should not have passed legalized Gay Marriage because of the legal and financial confusion? I don't think something being a hassle should be a reason to deny someone their rights, and to the polygamist thats exactly whats happening. Im not saying it will be easy to get the legal issues settled, but I dont see that being a good reason to oppose polygamy.

As for being insensitive, that situation would only happen if one of the couple wants to have multiple spouses, in which case opposing it would be insensitive to the person in the monogamous relationship who wants to get a 2nd spouse and the person wanting to become a part of that relationship. Opposing it would also be insensitive to those in love triangles who can't make up their minds.

The only person its being insensitive to is the person who does not want to share a spouse. So whats the bigger folly? Being insensitive to that one person or the other two?

Either way I would imagine most monogamous couples would simply say no to the third wheel.

"Marriage is about intimacy, attentiveness and exclusivity."

How is this different than the conservative argument:

"Marriage is about having children."

In both arguments the purpose of marriage is conveniently made to exclude whatever type of marriage that person opposes. Historically, both polygamy and monogamy have both existed. Many countries still recognize polygamy. Marriage has been about political power in some societies, and making sure that children were legitimate in others. Call me crazy, but I think of marriage being about love between consenting adults.

What is it about in the US exercising the religious aspects? Seems to me to be about promoting families and the rights of those who get married. So long as no one is getting hurt why not extend that to polygamists and group marriage? Those types of families are forming whether or not its legal, just like same sex couples are making families whether or not their state recognizes it. By denying it we are hurt those families.

"Finally, the law in many places didn't define marriage as being only heterosexual. But it has indeed defined marriage as monogamous. Gays aren't trying to alter the established structure of marriage in our society, while polygamists are."

No. This is inaccurate. Polygamy has existed in many countries throughout history (Remember King Solomon and his hundreds of wives?) and is still legal in many countries (Saudi Arabia). Further, that is exactly what conservatives are arguing. That Gay Marriage will alter the structure of marriage. Its the same argument!

If you can show me evidence that polygamy always leads to abuse or actually hurts people in a similar manner I will oppose it. But if its between consenting adults and wont hurt anyone then i dont see a reason why not.

You are playing fast and loose with words and heaping on logical fallacies to make your point. Case in point: The possibility of children are a given when it comes to marriage, and using them the way you did in a debate is wildly disingenuous. Even troll-like.

Here's another one:

So going by the it would be a hassle logic NZ should not have passed legalized Gay Marriage because of the legal and financial confusion?

What confusion? All of the possible legal situations that gay couples present have already been thoroughly expanded upon by heterosexual couples in their various situations. You are creating a false equivalency between gays and polygamists-- just as right wing homophobes do.

Its great that NZ only took four months to come up with the right use of pronouns on its forms. A shift to polygamy would take decades. Also, I live in Massachusetts-- the first state to accept gay marriage and I am gay myself. Adjusting legally required next-to zero effort; That is a measure of how compatible homosexuality is with the existing tradition.

Sane people do not use cultures like Saudi Arabia or from the Old Testament as examples to follow in marital affairs. Perhaps the pro-rape caucus in the Republican party would like to borrow such arguments?

So whats the bigger folly? Being insensitive to that one person or the other two?

I'm going to frame that one!!!

Such sensibilities seem developed entirely from reading comic books or The SIMs instead of relating to real people.

If you can show me evidence that polygamy always leads to abuse or actually hurts people in a similar manner I will oppose it.

You should try to prove that bestiality "always leads to abuse or actually hurts people" though I don't think you could. That doesn't make it acceptable as the basis for marriage.

Lack of harm is not the basis for accepting gay marriage. The reasons are that the law didn't really exclude gay people and that allowing practice to expand to them would reverse the tangibly negative effects of exclusion from the institution.

But if its between consenting adults and wont hurt anyone then i dont see a reason why not.

That's a rationale for freely associating (i.e. adults having sex, etc) not for marriage. The latter is a social contract... it is not "all about you and yours".

We are the US. We value freedom, liberty, and equality.

Im not playing fast and loose with words. You are the one trying to define the purpose of marriage. Possibility of children is NOT a given. Many couples are too old to have children, other dont want children, and when gay marriage passes the only ways for gay couples to have children is either adopt, find surrogates, or get sperm/egg donors. But they can and do have families, as do polygamists. Besides my "point" was to show you how your argument is identical to the one from the conservatives arguing against gay marriage.

What confusion? All of the possible legal situations that gay couples present have already been thoroughly expanded upon by heterosexual couples in their various situations. You are creating a false equivalency between gays and polygamists-- just as right wing homophobes do.

I used the word "confusion" because I was using your own words:

"As for your comment about the 'hassle', I personally don't find your glib dismissal of the mountain of legal and financial confusion resulting from legalized polygamy to be particularly conscientious or apt."

I am not creating a false equivalence between gays and polygamists, rather I see it as a "Freedom for you and me and not for thee" type of issue. Nor am I the one rehashing illogical conservative arguments against gay marriage and applying them to polygamists here.

"Its great that NZ only took four months to come up with the right use of pronouns on its forms. A shift to polygamy would take decades. Also, I live in Massachusetts-- the first state to accept gay marriage and I am gay myself. Adjusting legally required next-to zero effort; That is a measure of how compatible homosexuality is with the existing tradition."

Its not great that its taking them 4months to get this done. This gives the conservatives 4 months to try and force a member initiated referendum on the matter. A pointless exercise but it could slow things down even further. And not every state is like Mass. States like Mass actually have functional government in comparison to states like TX.

Yes, it will take time, decades even, but that is still not a reason to deny someone a right.

"Sane people do not use cultures like Saudi Arabia or from the Old Testament as examples to follow in marital affairs. Perhaps the pro-rape caucus in the Republican party would like to borrow such arguments? "

Yeah, but it is a good way of showing that someones argument is wrong when they try to make up the history of marriage or define what it means like you did and the conservatives do. Lets look at what you said again:

""Finally, the law in many places didn't define marriage as being only heterosexual. But it has indeed defined marriage as monogamous. Gays aren't trying to alter the established structure of marriage in our society, while polygamists are.""

These are your words. I proved them wrong. So the countries that have polygamy don't have a good record. Thats part of the reason I said:

My problem with polygamy is that to my understanding communities who embrace it often fall into patterns of polygyny and abuse. If this is shown to be wrong then I have no issues.

So long as its between consenting adults and does not hurt anyone, you should be able to marry whoever and how ever many spouses as you want.

In my first post.

You should try to prove that bestiality "always leads to abuse or actually hurts people" though I don't think you could. That doesn't make it acceptable as the basis for marriage.

Bestiality does not involve consenting adults. There is no chance of dangerous diseases working their way into the human species from either polygamy or gay marriage. Your example fails both of the conditions i laid out. Polygamy doesn't. Gay Marriage doesn't. Who was the one who talked about false equivalences again?

That's a rationale for freely associating (i.e. adults having sex, etc) not for marriage. The latter is a social contract... it is not "all about you and yours".

Social contracts can be changed. And no, its about the people involved. Its not about me, its about doing whats right by them and doing whats fair and whats right in general.

,,, in the somewhat liberal town where I attended grad school, there were threesomes in various combinations. Also one brother / sister act presenting themselves as man and wife. All kept pretty low profiles.

back in the sixties totally DESTROYED the social fabric of America. Not sure how we survived it.

its pretty safe to say those living arrangements destroyed themselves quite handily. They're not compatible with a liberation mindset.

Wants to subject himself to more than one wife a time then why not?

The only real problem with polygamy...in western human society at least...is that it generally degenerates into polygyny. In particular to a form of polygyny where a seriously dominate male acquires an effective harem of adolescent to mature wives.

Where's our history of polyandry? Where are the Amazons?

If a mixed gender group of people can form a family, sort out responsibilities, relationships, realities, figure out how to raise children with several caring mothers and fathers, be happy, and establish fair, satisfying, realistic, and practical mechanisms for conflict resolution...what's the problem with that?? I find a one woman, one man, two dogs relationship tests the limits of my abilities...but there are lot of more capable people somewhere...

Perhaps I'm revealing my background...growing up in the era of David Crosby's Triad - "I don't really see, why can't we go on as three?" or The Mamas and The Papas (whoa, who ordered that) ... Go Where You Wanna Go - "You don't understand... why a girl like me can't love, just one man."

And then we had Jesse Colin Young and the Youngbloods - "Everybody get together, try and love one another right now."

(from his "letters from the earth", which ought to be required reading)
. . . .


The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in woman's construction is this: There shall be no limit put upon your intercourse with the other sex sexually, at any time of life.

The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in man's construction is this: During your entire life you shall be under inflexible limits and restrictions, sexually.

During twenty-three days in every month (in absence of pregnancy) from the time a woman is seven years old till she dies of old age, she is ready for action, and competent. As competent as the candlestick is to receive the candle. Competent every day, competent every night. Also she wants that candle -- yearns for it, longs for it, hankers after it, as commanded by the law of God in her heart.

But man is only briefly competent; and only then in the moderate measure applicable to the word in his sex's case. He is competent from the age of sixteen or seventeen thence-forward for thirty-five years. After fifty his performance is of poor quality, the intervals between are wide, and its satisfactions of no great value to either party; whereas his great-grandmother is as good as new. There is nothing the matter with her plant. Her candlestick is as firm as ever, whereas his candle is increasingly softened and weakened by the weather of age, as the years go by, until at last it can no longer stand, and is mournfully laid to rest in the hope of a blessed resurrection which is never to come.

By the woman's make, her plant has to be out of service three days in the month, and during a part of her pregnancy. These are times of discomfort, often of suffering. For fair and just compensation she has the high privilege of unlimited adultery all the other days of her life.

That is the law of God, as revealed in her make. What becomes of this high privilege? Does she live in free enjoyment of it? No. Nowhere in the whole world. She is robbed of it everywhere. Who does this? Man. Man's statutes -- if the Bible is the Word of God.

Now there you have a sample of man's "reasoning powers," as he calls them. He observes certain facts. For instance, that in all his life he never sees the day that he can satisfy one woman; also, that no woman ever sees the day that she can't overwork, and defeat, and put out of commission any ten masculine plants that can be put to bed to her. He puts those strikingly suggestive and luminous facts together, and from them draws this astonishing conclusion: The Creator intended the woman to be restricted to one man.

So he concretes that singular conclusion into law, for good and all.

And he does it without consulting the woman, although she has a thousand times more at stake in the matter than he has. His procreative competency is limited to an average of a hundred exercises per year for fifty years, hers is good for three thousand a year for that whole time -- and as many years longer as she may live. Thus his life interest in the matter is five thousand refreshments, while hers is a hundred and fifty thousand; yet instead of fairly and honorably leaving the making of the law to the person who has an overwhelming interest at stake in it, this immeasurable hog, who has nothing at stake in it worth considering, makes it himself!

You have heretofore found out, by my teachings, that man is a fool; you are now aware that woman is a damned fool.

Now if you or any other really intelligent person were arranging the fairness and justices between man and woman, you would give the man one-fiftieth interest in one woman, and the woman a harem. Now wouldn't you? Necessarily. I give you my word, this creature with the decrepit candle has arranged it exactly the other way. Solomon, who was one of the Deity's favorites, had a copulation cabinet composed of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. To save his life he could not have kept two of these young creatures satisfactorily refreshed, even if he had had fifteen experts to help him. Necessarily almost the entire thousand had to go hungry years and years on a stretch. Conceive of a man hardhearted enough to look daily upon all that suffering and not be moved to mitigate it. He even wantonly added a sharp pang to that pathetic misery; for he kept within those women's sight, always, stalwart watchmen whose splendid masculine forms made the poor lassies' mouths water but who hadn't anything to solace a candlestick with, these gentry being eunuchs. A eunuch is a person whose candle has been put out. By art.[**]

. . . .

http://www.online-literature.com/twain/letters-from-the-earth/9/

Would love to see it happen. Was in a triad for almost 8 years before it ended, on very good terms, we are all still friends and still care about each other. Would have been nice for it to have been recognized, as my relationship with my wife is.

Also, was this illegal in the place you lived in? Was this a legally registered union?

Gateway is a myth. Pot doesn't lead to heroin and gay marriage won't lead to polygamy or necrophilia. Those who have no good argument can be counted on to roll out the pretzel logic.

[img][/img]

I'm watching the stonewall riots on PBS,as we speak.

I still miss my pal, fightingthegoodfightnow!

I don't see anything wrong with polygamy as long as it's between consenting adults. All the arguments in favor of gay marriage can be used in favor of polygamy.

Can be ordered from PBS as a box set.

[img][/img]

I have to tell President Whosis of the Ethical Whasis of The Southern Baptists Which about the OT? (i.e. Torah)?

I thought they were supposed to know all about the "BAHBEL".

By their logic giving women the right to vote will obviously cause men to get to vote twice, or maybe even more then twice, in the same election. After all, if you start giving some people who can't vote the right to vote it'll OBVIOUSLY lead to letting others who can already vote get to vote multiple times.

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm also white, so obviously giving African Americans the right to vote will also give me an extra vote to cast in each election! I should have at least three votes then!