I started this thread because there were an awful lot of liberals, who, when warned of the slippery slope regarding polygamy, said, “Nonsense. That will never happen.” Furthermore, they seemed–somehow–genuinely unaware of the fact that many of their arguments for gay marriage applied equally strongly to polygamy.
One man and one woman. It doesn’t matter if the woman is regarded as the man’s property; it equally doesn’t matter if the law requires joint decisions on everything; the forms, customs, and rights within the framework of one man + one woman are totally irrelevant.
There is only one way to be consistent on this–either NO non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed, or else ALL non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed. Anything else is picking winners and losers based on individual preference.
Can you find one of those conversations?, because I remember people saying “who cares if people do start campaigning for polygamy?”. I honestly think you could be misremembering.
Why do you focus on the gender of the couple to be married over and above the traditional “forms, customs and rights within the framework”? Why is the gender tradition unchangeable but multiple other “forms, customs and rights” are free to vary as cultures evolve?
You don’t make a convincing case. You can invoke a supernatural mandate if you like but that is simply an appeal to (an unproven) authority and as such it holds no force at all.
That seems a really silly idea. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why cant we decide which traditions are worth keeping and which shoukd be discarded? Slavery is traditional, so is chicken noodle soup, so we have to have both or neither? Silly.
(Emphasis added.)
Well, that explains a lot.
The only argument I can think of that applies equally well to same-sex marriage and polyamorous marriage is “the only right and moral form of marriage is one man and one woman; all other forms are wrong and immoral, and moreover identically wrong and immoral.”
And I reject that argument.
Or based on, you know, logical arguments and rational thought. Potato potahto.
Well, my rights as a spouse are eroded if my husband can bring home another wife. I suppose my rights are also enlarged if I can bring home another spouse. Either way, it fundamentally changes MY marriage in a way that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn’t.
Does the above help?
By the way, I’m not entirely opposed to legalizing polygamy within an appropriate legal framework that protects the rights of existing partners and children, and that somehow respects entities that provide benefits based on family structure. In practice, it might work better than “divorce and try again”, which seems to be pretty common. But I see it as a much bigger jump than same-sex marriage.
That’s really, really reaching. For one thing, SSM is not going to have to look at how we handle divorce, and division of property. Gonna be pretty much the same.
As far a polygamy goes, :shrug: so what. Why do you care? Does this directly effect you some how? Does SSM effect you?
And there’s your slippery slope and the end of the nuclear family.
Oh. Good heavens. No. Not that.
yawn
No. I don’t care about incestuous marriages, either. My position isn’t based on my fantasies. It’s based on the fact that I see no valid moral objection to such marriages (incestuous included apart from parent/child).
Even if you’re not married, sex can still result in pregnancy. Not a valid reason to ban such marriages.
You say upthread your views are based on biblical (God of Abraham/Jesus) definitions of marriage.
Do you also have a problem with atheists marrying? A Hindu and a Muslim?
Why are you thinking we’re on a slippery slope now, when there are plenty of other non-biblical marriages recognized by the US Government for decades upon decades?
I guess i see what you mean, but those things could happen tomorrow regardless of the law. In the sense that marriage is at risk of erosion by such changes, we have to regard it as so fragile as to be nearly worthless.
How so? Wouldn’t that violate your vows to one another, assuming you both agreed to enter a monogamous marriage?
Nuclear families won’t disappear unless all marriages are polygamous, which is pretty much impossible. In any case, why exactly is a nuclear family superior to an extended family? The modern Western nuclear family differs from the “traditional” extended family structure of many cultures, including earlier Western ones.
Just like the introduction of strawberry ice cream brought about the end of vanilla.
The legal and social expectations of the world we live in matter.