So? That’s it? “Legal questions”? That’s all it takes to deny people who love each other the right to marry? “Legal questions”?
OK. So, according to you, 3 would follow 2 if it were one person getting married to two different people. OK. I’m pretty sure that’ll still fit my argument.
So what if one person gets married to two different people? Three different people. One hundred different people?
Person 1 gets married to persons 2, 3, and 4. Person 4 gets married to persons 5 and 6. We have:
1 is married to 2 - 3 - 4 (acceptable, by your reasoning, right?)
2 is married to 1 (and nobody else)
3 is married to 1 (and nobody else)
4 is married to 1 - 5 - 6
5 is married to 4 (and nobody else)
6 is married to 4 (and nobody else)
Does this follow both your and my logic?
Actually, a lot of them don’t. The only one that applies equally to both situations is, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone, there shouldn’t be a law against it.” All of the other arguments for gay marriage are largely unique to gay marriage.
And the thing about that one argument they share - well, it hasn’t necessarily been proven yet. In societies where they have legalized polygamy, there’s a pretty strong case to be made that polygamy has a measurable deleterious effect on society. In fairness, these tend to be strongly patriarchal societies (Saudi Arabia, Mormon splinter cults, etc.), and their model of polygamy would not likely be at all similar to how polygamy would be adopted in the US, if we should ever legalize polygamy. However, the effects of legalized polygamy on our society are still largely unknown.
Of course, we’ve never had gay marriage before, so one could argue that legalizing gay marriage is a similar unknown. Except, we do have lots and lots of gays who have been in long-term relationships that are functionally and emotionally (if not legally) identical to straight marriage, and this has done no measurable harm to society. It’s unlikely in the extreme that government recognition of relationships that have been existing for decades is suddenly going to flip us all into chaos and ruination.
So, really, there’s very little overlap between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. A case can certainly be made for polygamous marriage, but it will have to be made on its own merits. It is not a necessary extension of gay marriage.
I was phrasing it generously. It’s a complete fucking mess, and until someone sets up a viable process for, just off the top of my head, distinguishing who is married to whom in a plural marriage, who gets visitation rights after a divorce, who possesses power of attorney for one or more incapacitated members, proposing it just isn’t realistic.
I see what you did there. I doff my tophat to you, sir.
Reason enough to stop same-sex marriage right there.
Besides what Miller said, I’d point out that holding the position that “Any two consenting adult people should be allowed to marry” allows SSM, and disallows all those other things, without hypocrisy. Those other things either aren’t adult, aren’t people, or can’t consent.
Here is a specific example. I was in Egypt last month, so this information comes from our guide. Polygamy is legal in Egypt, up to four wives. Divorce is also legal, and can be initiated by either husband of wife. However, if a woman initiates a divorce she must return money received by the man, so it is financially disadvantageous. Men wishing to get divorced do so by adding a wife and making life intolerable for the first one.
Now our divorce laws might be more equitable than theirs, but even so it would be hard to prevent this de facto divorce from happening here.
But where does the slippery slope begin? Maybe it started with allowing two people of the same race to be married, then it was extended to allow inter-racial marriage. If we hadn’t allowed these then there would be no SSM argument. Maybe we should go back to American “tradition” and get rid of inter-racial marriages.
The penalty for polygamy is two wives.
But why two? Why not just leave the word out? Why keep three people from living the loving happy lives they see for themselves?
He was referring to the “Marrying kids, animals, and inanimate objects,” argument, not the polygamy argument.
You do indeed sound a lot like my relative. If we libruls (actually, I am an old school republican) say that there isn’t any difference whether the couple getting married has the same genitals or not; you make up some false argument and pretend that you have an answer. I suggest you shout louder and repeat yourself more frequently. That way, you don’t have to acknowledge how you have no answer to “What is wrong with SSM?”
Instead of asking your brilliant question about why don’t we open it up to three people, you should have asked the “Why not 2 people and a sea turtle?” Oh, how that would have sent us reeling.
Page 3 of thread. What is the bad thing that will happen if SSM is allowed?
Remember when Canada legalized same sex marriage? Less than a decade later*, boom, global economic meltdown.
Sure, it might not be connected, but can you take that chance?
*I say less than a decade because I can’t be bothered to Google it and it was so much of a non-issue for those not directly affected that I can’t really remember when it happened.
What the hell is a “false argument”? I think of arguments being measured by degrees of validity. Then again, I seem to have a better handle on the whole argument thing than you do.
Your desire to place me comfortably in one of the little boxes you’ve built with your wooden mind aside, I didn’t because I there was no need to use a fantastical example. The point is, if it’s okay for you to rejigger the definition to accommodate two people of the same sex, why can’t polygamists rejigger it slightly to accommodate their lifestyle? Fact is, that is a problem for the SSM proponents. And I would contend, that it makes it less of a change to accommodate three people than it does two people of the same sex.
Make sense, Sparky?
You would be wrong. Sex is irrelevant to marriage.
And you’re wrong, because same-sex marriage requires a few minor cut-and-paste operations on the various forms, while 3+ marriage requires new legislation. Divorce alone would take up volumes. It’s definitely not a “slight” change.
Actually, I’ve suggested that for 3+ marriages, the best avenue is not to adapt marriage law, but legal partnership law. Model a 3+ marriage after a law firm or medical practice partnership, where structures already exist allowing partners to come and go.
That’s what you’re arguing, yes. But that is not true traditionally or historically.
Now, if you want to hang your empty skull on the same hook with Snoboarder Bo’s empty coat and cite the Nuer, be my guest. You guys would make a good team. But I think, HOPE, you’re not that dumb. Actually I hope nobody else is that dumb.
Would you mind terribly addressing the topic put forth by the title of this thread, as I asked politely here?
I meant conceptually, as you would still have the man-woman thing.
Not right now. And when I do, it won’t be in the pit. God knows it gets contentious enough in GD. Also, I need to have ample time to answer the slews of questions, objections, and counterpoints. It’s a full time job. Believe me, I know.