Oh, come on.
Lots of people who oppose gay marriage go around saying sexual orientation is not an inborn trait too. Now you’re walking in here and, without offering any evidence, declaring that loving multiple people is not one, to justify your views.
Besides, so what? Who said rights must be based on inborn traits? Religious belief isn’t inborn, but we protect it as a right in our Constitution and in our laws against discrimination.
First, can we all assume the given that sexual orientation is inborn? Thanks.
The reason why I don’t consider marrying multiple people to be an inborn trait because there is no biological imperative to be attracted to number as opposed to gender. I grant that there is a dearth of research on it, but it seems to me that if one is attracted only to a number, then we would naturally see a non-insignificant amount of polygamist families composed of one woman with multiple men, or a man marrying other men, or a combination of women and men, or women marrying other women or a combination of other women and men. That the sexes are segregated into a single person of one gender and multiple people of the opposite tells me that its not about the number, its about the sex and power imbalance.
If polygamists were right and they can only be happy being with multiple people, why is the primary form of polygamy one man and multiple women? And why the power imbalance? The single man in the household usually holds all the power. Why not one of the wives subordinate themselves to a man and other women even if she may be the richest or the one with the most power in the relationship? Clearly then, to me at least, its not about some inborn trait and all about a power imbalance.
If the vast majority of homosexuality were only gay men, matching the proportion of the traditional polygamist household, then I would be suspicious too that being gay is inborn rather than chosen but there’s at least somewhat of a balance between the number of gay men and lesbian women.
And if its about numbers, well, there’s a lot of numbers out there. Infinite amounts, in fact. Practicality reduces the variation somewhat but are there people out there claiming they need exactly 42 spouses to be happy? Or 17? Or 538? Its such a random genetic quirk then, isn’t it, to say that polygamists NEED to be with about 2 or 3 or 4 other people when there are more numbers out there.
And there’s the real world examples of polygamists who usually fall into a man-made pattern instead of a real, random genetic variation. Where are the young male polygamists marrying scores of older women? Or the happily living together polygamists who’ve been together for 50 years? A lot of what makes gay discrimination obviously wrong is that these aren’t people who are out for some kind of agenda, they are just normal people living their lives. Where are the human interest stories where polygamists have been together for years despite its illegality, just living like normal people? And why do I always hear about them being part of some ultra fundamentalist Christian churches? If its truly just about numbers where are the atheist ones? The Buddhist ones, the Unitarian or Zoroastrian ones? Having it highly concentrated in a few particular sects of a church does not convince me its innate.
But ultimately, I don’t care too much about the issue. I may not be convinced of their innateness, but I’m not going to stand in their way. If polygamy becomes legal, I’m not going to howl like Fred Phelps because I disagree with it. As long as the relationship is between consensual adults and nobody’s being hurt or coerced, they can do what they want. I’m simply not convinced.
Generally, the belief that we shouldn’t discriminate against people seem to be based on things people can’t change, therefore it would be wrong to be biased against them. A man can’t help being born a man, a German can’t help being born German, etc. Therefore, its wrong to slap a hindrance on them at birth because there’s no way he can change that. You can regulate aspects of voluntary behavior, however, if it is harmful. Usually the justification is that it harms other people and violates their rights.
Religion is a funny thing though. I’m personally atheist and completely against religion. I want it to be eliminated as a form of protection so that governments can mandate that publicly, everyone should be atheist (which should be the default). I find religion in general too harmful to allow. At the very least, all religions should be strictly within the boundaries of the law, meaning no religion should ever get an exception on anything. Either follow the law, or your religion is wrong.
I don’t agree. I think those tend to be ways we discriminate, but that’s not the reason we protect it from discrimination.
Nobody is arguing otherwise. But do you think it’s wrong for me to refuse to hire or serve atheists in my (hypothetical) shop? You can easily change your religious beliefs, after all - you weren’t born with them.
Uh, have you seen the statistics on extra-marital affairs? Have you noticed that our species is sexually dimorphic? Have you noticed that none of the great ape species is monogamous? Every piece of evidence we have tells us that our species is not monogamous. We may be, at best, serially monogamous, but there seems to be a lot of overlap between the participants in the “series”.
Monogamy is a recent development in our species, and is almost certainly cultural, not biological.
Broad brushes like this offer nobody any protection. Alcoholism and pedophilia are likely inherited conditions, but nobody seriously considers offering heightened scrutiny to those groups. You may say that we don’t punish alcoholics unless they do something harmful like driving drunk, but one could just as easily argue that while homosexuality is inherited, male and male sodomy must be outlawed because of higher incidents of HIV transmission to protect the public. Surely disease control is a rational basis.
As far as religion, would you be in favor of removing religious belief as a protection when in 2025, Pat Robertson III is President of the United States and mandates that you go to church twice a week? Remember, protections are a two way street and that’s why they are so important.
No, because I don’t consider atheism a religion. And as a default position, one shouldn’t be discriminated against it. Discriminate against religious people should be ok though. Just like we shouldn’t discriminated against people who don’t spit, but you can certainly mandate that you feel spitting is disgusting and not hire anyone who spits
HIV transmission during sodomy isn’t an example of sodomy and HIV being interconnected, its an example of sodomy being done wrong.
You misunderstand my desire to remove religious exceptions. Religion should be treated as a disease, harmful and marginalized. Atheism should be the default because its not a religion and no one should be able to discriminate against atheists. Discrimination against religious people however, is ok.
So, uh, we can all talk about the . . . interesting . . . idea that religious people should be discriminated against as diseased–or we can continue with a thread about the ramifications of polygamy.
YOU DECIDE!
Oh, come on. That’s your response?
Freedom of religion includes freedom to have no religious beliefs. You should understand that. You actually think someone should be able to discriminate against you?
Wow, you’re REALLY confused. I don’t know where to start with this.
Your logic is absolutely identical to that of religious fanatics who want to impose their religion on others. Ironic.
Yes, it’s a bit off-topic. But polygamy is an issue that almost inevitably intersects with religion.
“Polygamous” and “non-monogamous” are two different things.
For the point I was making, there is enough overlap that they can be treated as the same. I mentioned the possibility of serial monogamy, but the data on infidelity doesn’t really support that. People two-time quite often as opposed to always breaking a relationship off before staring another one.
Did you have something else in mind?
I understand it, I don’t have to agree with it.
Tell me why its ok to pass laws saying one shouldn’t sag their pants, or you can’t skateboard in certain areas, or you can’t smoke in public but you can’t do it with religion. Why does religion get an exemption?
So let me see if I get this right:
You still can’t be legally married to more than one person. If you’re legally married to one person, then pretending you aren’t so as to claim the legal benefits of marriage with another person is a crime.
You still can live with more than one person, and have sex with more than one person, the same as before the ruling. However, now if you want to go around calling all those people your wife (without it being part of an attempt to deceive the government in order to claim the legal benefits of marriage with more than one person), then you are free to do so, whereas before, in Utah, you weren’t.
That seems like a free speech issue to me, and I agree with the result as I understand it.
But then your views make no sense. You believe in freedom of religious thought, yet you don’t. You believe in it only for you and not others.
We could have a debate about that, but that’s not the point. The point is that you’ve talked yourself into the ridiculously illogical idea that only those whose religious beliefs consist of “there is no religion or God” deserve such exemption but everyone else doesn’t. Make up your mind. If you can discriminate against people based on their belief about religion, why can’t they do it to you?
As far as polygamous marriage vs. same sex marriage, it seems obvious to me that a person who wants to legally marry two people is asking for a greater benefit than that currently available to monogamous straight people, whereas a gay person who wants to marry the person of their choice is asking for the same benefit currently available to monogamous straight people.
Focusing on taxes as an example: I can file taxes jointly with my wife. Tax brackets (in my layman’s understanding) are like buckets, you fill up the bucket that’s taxed at the lower rate and then your remaining income goes in the bucket that’s taxed at the higher rate. If my wife makes less than me, then filing jointly benefits me because I can dump some of my income in her lower rate bucket rather than having it spill over to the higher rate bucket. (Really we share buckets that are twice as big as they would be for an individual, but that’s effectively the same thing.)
If I were gay and my wife were my husband, everything I said in the above paragraph would be equally true, and the benefit for me would be exactly the same. If however I were allowed to find three lower salary people and dump my income in all their low-rate tax buckets, that’s obviously a big additional financial win for me.
None of which is to say that the law should not in some way accomodate polygamous people. Perhaps it should, but if so it ought to do so in a way that doesn’t give them an extra benefit over monogamous couples. Maybe when it comes to tax brackets this would mean they could all file jointly, but only with brackets that are the same size as they are for two people. But what about things like insurance… would an insurance plan that covers your spouse be required to cover all your spouses at the same rate? If not, what should the rate be?
There’s a long list of “how do you make it fair” questions that would need to be answered.
Rights should be determined (at least in part) by some notion of fairness. For me the crayon argument illustrates that it’s obvious what’s fair when it comes to same-sex marriage, and it’s not obvious what’s fair when it comes to polygamous marriage.
I know “rocket science” is just an expression, but arguably this is more complicated than rocket science, because with rockets there’s always a correct answer which in principle is testable, whereas the question of what rights people should be entitled to is far more subjective and debatable.
Skateboarding in certain areas can pose a danger to pedestrians.
Smoking in public exposes people to carcinogens.
I would think that any religious practice that presents an equal risk of injury or disease to passers-by could also be restricted.
That said, religious freedom is protected in part because of the long history of religious persecution throughout the world. I see no great reason for a saggy pants bans, but we as a society probably aren’t too concerned about persecution of pants-saggers either, so they aren’t granted the same protections as a class of people.
Yup. We have two injustices we need to rectify: same-sex couples can’t marry, and polygamous groups can’t marry. We should address both of them, but we have limited energy, political clout, and legal firepower. SSM is trivially easy to implement once a few key provisions are changed. Polymarriage is complicated and will require extensive debate to figure out what the legal structure should look like before it gets implemented. There’s nothing wrong with finishing SSM before tackling polymarriage. That doesn’t mean polymarriage isn’t important, it’s just not going to happen as quickly as SSM.
I get it, we fought a war, the Pilgrims escaped, etc. But logically, religion is just as much of a chosen and non-innate behavior as skateboarding, smoking, spitting, or fruit fucking. If you think religion is special, then at least have the honesty to admit it. As far as I’m concerned, its outlived whatever usefulness it had and deserves to be treated no better than if I were a square dancer
It makes perfect sense. Atheism isn’t a religion so promoting it is irreligious
My mind is made up. Atheism is not a religion, so you can force people to act atheist. They can’t force me to act religious because religion is a harmful and proveably false belief system. Until there is evidence to prove a religion correct, the default position should be atheism.
But hey, I’m willing to compromise. Lets treat religion like smoking or alcohol where its illegal to teach it to someone under 18 because its harmful. Then when an adult chooses to become religious, they can be subject to extra taxes for practicing it or it can be restricted in any way the the lawmakers choose to
And how does saggy pants harm you?
Religious belief itself is harmful and the effects are longer-termed and more insidious.
Yes, religious persecution by other religions. My proposal eliminates all that in one fell swoop: no religion gets to persecute anyone because we won’t tolerate any religion at all. Besides, how long does religion get to use the excuse “we’ve been persecuted” to maintain and create laws giving themselves exceptions and power?
Whether it’s a religion or not is irrelevant here. It’s a belief about religion.
Sorry, no.
You may not force me or anyone else to act or think a certain way about religion. I have a right to have beliefs that you believe aren’t proveably true, and to act on them.
My mind is made up.
The compromise was made long ago in the First Amendment.
Not much of a compromise. No thanks.
So everyone is equally persecuted! Problem solved.
How about no religion gets to persecute anyone…period. See how that works? Much simpler.
Isn’t that pretty much exactly what you’re doing right now?
