Over the last few weeks, I've been having this discussion with my wife and many of my friends, as well as some people on the internet. I had read an article that was posted on this very forum about a pastor who suggested that accepting gay marriage will lead to two things -- multiple marriage and bestiality. First of all, like the Bill O'Reilly argument that we'll be marrying children and lamps, the bestiality argument fails to address the issue of consent. An animal, a child and a lamp cannot give consent, but a grown man or woman can consent to homosexual marriage and we, as human beings, truly have no right to deny them.
But then, I found myself in this position of debating "what about plural marriage?" What IF gay marriage led to plural marriage? I don't mean polygamy, as anyone with half a brain knows that the NDLS situation was extreme and technically had nothing to do with plural marriage, it was a religious fundamentalist group abusing children in the name of God for personal satisfaction/gratification/iconification. But plural marriage between consenting adults? I... well, I can't find ANY valid reason to deny this. And outside some pretty flimsy comparisons to fundamentalist religious indoctrination groups, I haven't heard any arguments from anyone else that I could consider valid, either.
So now, here I am in blood and flesh (or, really, digital signals) sincerely posing the question ... what if it does? So the fuck what? Consenting adults can live together and fuck and have kids and be happy in nonmonogamous relationships (and, in fact, do, as has been chronicled by several documentaries I've seen in the past). Current adultery laws are rarely, if ever, applied or even enforced. Why can't they get married, if all are consenting adults? Surely, the freethinkers here can give me some insight.
Thanks for your consideration!
There are no rational arguments against a polygamous relationship on an emotional level. The only real issue is having to rewrite a lot of laws and having to figure out how to deal with things like responsbility, finances, wills, child rearing, etc.
I'd be totally in favor of taking time to figure out the pitfalls and updating laws to match, but you'd probably come across some interesting situations.
Same sex marriage and plural marriage have absolutely nothing to do with each other, first of all. And I am not even going to dignify the bestiality comment. Same sex and opposite sex marriage, yeah, they are the same thing as far as I am concerned. But plural marriage is a whole nuther can of corn altogether.
I think it should be legal. Why should I have a say in what other consenting ADULTS want? That is the key, though, that everyone is consenting and an adult. Otherwise it's none of my beeswax. The problem is in the religious communities that espouse same sex marriage, way too often, underage girls are brainwashed into that fundie life and married off like cattle to 50 year old men.
Some opposite-sex friends of ours have been married for something like 20 years. They are now engaged to a woman who they plan to marry someday soon. If it makes them all happy, why should anyone care?
"So what?" is the correct response to most social taboos imo.
If men or women can handle more than one wife or husband more power to them. Solitary
The person you were debating should be asked what is wrong with polygamy. What is the assumption he uses to condemn it? It would solve a lot of problems for the Mormon Church.
It will lead to god causing more tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires and airplanes hitting skyscrapers as punishment. Other than that, no objections. Next case. :)
I don't see any real connection between gay marriage and polygamy.
Doesn't matter anyway, since we already have polygamy.
(//http://i1.ytimg.com/sh/DLBhtYXLf0s/showposter.jpg)
Quote from: "Mermaid"Same sex marriage and plural marriage have absolutely nothing to do with each other, first of all.
They're both about marriage freedom.
The conservatives like to say "slippery slope, what will gay marriage lead to, multiple marriages?" The progressive response is to say "no way, that's a slippery slope argument, we're only interested in going so far." But the libertarians say "yes, sure, why not, I'm in favor of it."
The same three arguments were used in inter-racial marriages, the previous marriage equality battle.
Unfortunately, whenever the progressives catch up to the libertarians, they say "now that we're here someone is finally talking about this instead of nobody talking about this."
Quote from: "Solitary"If men or women can handle more than one wife or husband more power to them. Solitary
Yes indeed. I don't even want one wife.... more seems to me like being a glutton for punishment, but if someone wants to, why not let them get on with it? It's none of my business what people do in their personal lives.
Out of interest..... does multiple wives mean multiple tax breaks? :-k
As a young man, I read a lot of Robert Heinlein. I'm afraid it warped my mind. He didn't spend much time on homosexual relationships, but he loved the idea of multiple spouses of both genders.
(//http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/slippery4.png)
It isn't about multiple marriage, it is about choice. Look at any current polygamist culture and what you see are women who are being brought into relationships by coercion, by "convincing" by citing religious dogma or any of several reasons. The problem is not polygamy itself but how it is conducted. In religion, it is very patriarchal; women are considered property and are treated as such. Young women in FLDS (Mormon fundie church) have little choice about who they marry, when and why. They are often essentially sold to the highest bidder, which is usually an older man of means. 14 year old girls marrying 40-60 year old men is more common than you realize.
Assuming equal status of man and woman, marriages by choice (of the woman) for economic or other reasons, fine. But the problem is that it is not generally done that way. I could easily be involved in a relationship with two or more women, with the understanding that said women have equal rights and equal choice. Opening the door to polygamy unfortunately justifies (as in fulfillment of prophecy) what is happening now in polygamist religions, which to me is not a good thing.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Quote from: "Solitary"If men or women can handle more than one wife or husband more power to them. Solitary
Yes indeed. I don't even want one wife.... more seems to me like being a glutton for punishment, but if someone wants to, why not let them get on with it? It's none of my business what people do in their personal lives.
Out of interest..... does multiple wives mean multiple tax breaks? :-k
A friend of mine worked for the Peace Corps in Africa. Sometimes the village chief would be very sad when all of his wives would get mad at him. There are drawbacks to multiple wives. It's not all that great.
Quote from: "SGOS"A friend of mine worked for the Peace Corps in Africa. Sometimes the village chief would be very sad when all of his wives would get mad at him. There are drawbacks to multiple wives. It's not all that great.
Especially when they all find out about each other.... :axe
I am not into marriage or having kids myself. They can be fulfilling, yes, but they can also be a nightmare. I'd rather just live my own life and do my own thing, and if people want to do certain things with their life it's their choice provided they are civilized about it and it respects the human rights of others.
I'll send away for 5 or 6 asian wives. I'm sure they'll be able to take care of my house and other needs. They'll all have to live in the same room and get jobs to pay for the rent on the room and their other needs.
I'm thinking Philippines. Love them pot stickers.
It'd be awkward if I met a really attractive girl only to find that she's my distant, distant, distant step-sister because polygamy was legalized. Of course, the only downside to legalizing polygamy and it becoming widespread is the sudden decrease in available men/women (assuming incest is still an issue ....).
The bestiality argument has always been weak in my mind's eye. The very first thought that came to my mind when that argument was first put forth was with the issue of consent. And as for the argument concerning pedophiles and their rights ... children lack the same judgment as one would possess if her or she was older. Plus, in most case of pedophilia the child was either forced into it or manipulated/tricked.
Slippery slope.
(//http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery_slope.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1224997598304)
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Mermaid"Same sex marriage and plural marriage have absolutely nothing to do with each other, first of all.
They're both about marriage freedom.
The conservatives like to say "slippery slope, what will gay marriage lead to, multiple marriages?" The progressive response is to say "no way, that's a slippery slope argument, we're only interested in going so far." But the libertarians say "yes, sure, why not, I'm in favor of it."
The same three arguments were used in inter-racial marriages, the previous marriage equality battle.
Unfortunately, whenever the progressives catch up to the libertarians, they say "now that we're here someone is finally talking about this instead of nobody talking about this."
Since when did anti-polygamous marriage become a progressive position? Like, ever? I think your just trying to trump up your own "group". As for me I have no problems with polygamous marriage. I always thought having sex with the same person forever would get boring after a while anyway.
Quote from: "SGOS"A friend of mine worked for the Peace Corps in Africa. Sometimes the village chief would be very sad when all of his wives would get mad at him. There are drawbacks to multiple wives. It's not all that great.
Not to mention that when a group of female live together for long enough, their biology synchs up and they
go on the rag at the same fucking time.
This is why the way to do it is to travel a lot and have a chippy in every city.
QuoteIt'd be awkward if I met a really attractive girl only to find that she's my distant, distant, distant step-sister because polygamy was legalized. Of course, the only downside to legalizing polygamy and it becoming widespread is the sudden decrease in available men/women (assuming incest is still an issue ....).
Incest is a biological thing, it's not related to marriage. If you have 6 fathers and 5 mothers, from the incest perspective you still only have to be careful about sleeping with girls/guys who either share your biological father or your biological mother (or both) because none of the others share enough DNA with you that you'd be at risk.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"A friend of mine worked for the Peace Corps in Africa. Sometimes the village chief would be very sad when all of his wives would get mad at him. There are drawbacks to multiple wives. It's not all that great.
Not to mention that when a group of female live together for long enough, their biology synchs up and they go on the rag at the same fucking time.
This is why the way to do it is to travel a lot and have a chippy in every city.
Or, like most guys, plan your fishing/hunting/skiing/bowling league trips accordingly.
I'd just like to thank everyone that responded. I've always felt something was wrong with the institute of marriage itself, not people who get married. There's nothing wrong with choosing to be monogamous, but I just can't see anything wrong with choosing to be polygamous/polyamorous, either. I'm glad to know I'm not the only person that came to this conclusion on their own (which, incidentally, is how I've felt about EVERY SINGLE ISSUE I've dealt with since becoming an atheist, and the sole motivating reason I joined this board in the first place).
One of the biggest arguments I've heard since I came to this conclusion, when trying to debate it and learn more about it, was the emotional question, "How would you feel if your wife wanted to marry another man?". And it seems like a cop out to me, especially the more I think about it. At first, I probably had the same gut reaction any married man might have (oh, HELL, no!). But the more I thought about it, and put everything into the prism of shared marriage as opposed to competitive marriage, I began to realize something. If some guy fell in love with my wife for all the same reasons I did, and truly respected her and wanted to treat her well (which she deserves), and he could be a great companion to her, then why wouldn't I share that with him? I honestly think she's a great woman and if one guy that treats her right is a good thing, I can't see how having two of a good thing is bad. And if he's a decent, respectable person that wants to be good to her, then he's not going to try and break us up, as he'd clearly see we're in love and not leaving each other short of death. I mean, hell, he and I will always have something in common to talk about and maybe I'll get another cool drinking buddy out of the deal. I say "win-fucking-win".
But try suggesting that to a serial monogamist. I'd rather say "go ahead, have two husbands/wives" over hopping from one relationship to the next every three weeks, or marrying five different guys while fooling around on each of them (like someone I've known personally, dare I say). The funniest reaction to this sort of rationality is "well, you must not love her very much". Well, thank you for judging me and my own thoughts/feelings, because clearly you know better than I do how I should feel.
Quote"How would you feel if your wife wanted to marry another man?"
It's not just a cop-out, it's a bullshit argument. How any one person feels about the subject is
completely irrelevant to the fact that there's millions of people out there who might think differently, and who should also be free to live life as they want to enjoy it.
It's kinda like asking "how would you feel if you had to marry someone of the same gender?". It's completely stupid to ask. If you don't want your wife to marry another man,
discuss that shit with her and explain why you don't want it. Don't make a law to forbid the whole practice for everyone just because you're not interested in it.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote"How would you feel if your wife wanted to marry another man?"
It's not just a cop-out, it's a bullshit argument. How any one person feels about the subject is completely irrelevant to the fact that there's millions of people out there who might think differently, and who should also be free to live life as they want to enjoy it.
It's kinda like asking "how would you feel if you had to marry someone of the same gender?". It's completely stupid to ask. If you don't want your wife to marry another man, discuss that shit with her and explain why you don't want it. Don't make a law to forbid the whole practice for everyone just because you're not interested in it.
Which is exactly why I played the devil's advocate card. While you or I don't want to do something, there's absolutely no solid reason why we should arrest and vilify others who do. If only more people put themselves in the shoes of others. Hell -- didn't Jesus TEACH THAT?! To pick the beam from one's own eye FIRST? Worry about your own problems? It all boils down to a power trip. "I know what's best for you, better than you do."
Quote from: "Jesus"It'd be awkward if I met a really attractive girl only to find that she's my distant, distant, distant step-sister
You're already running that risk.
Quote from: "Broede"So now, here I am in blood and flesh (or, really, digital signals) sincerely posing the question ... what if it does? So the fuck what?
I really don't have a problem with polygamy. Marry whoever you want, in whatever combination of sexes you want. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I'm fine with it.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "SGOS"A friend of mine worked for the Peace Corps in Africa. Sometimes the village chief would be very sad when all of his wives would get mad at him. There are drawbacks to multiple wives. It's not all that great.
Not to mention that when a group of female live together for long enough, their biology synchs up and they go on the rag at the same fucking time.
:roll:
Quote from: "Mermaid"False
What's your source on that?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"He is not actually complaining or even whining. He is acting like this, because he can't pull their pigtails anymore and that's about all what he knows about them.
And kicking them in the shins.
Problem is, they kick me back. :(
Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same. - Oscar Wilde
Reminds me of Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. In a perfectly free society, it wouldn't matter who bedded who so much if it was understood to be mutual across the board. I would not mind sharing a woman with another man, assuming everyone's needs were met- sexual, intellectual, or whatever. I have known women I resonated with more intellectually than sexually and also the reverse. I also would not have trouble with bisexuality, even though I am not, again based on meeting of needs.
Basically, my argument against polygamy as a legal venture is primarily that of practicality. You have one of 4 people that want out, say. I'm sure it could be done, but, a mess.
And, just from my experience, it seems to me that people who want a committed legal relationship want it to be a couple. I suppose maybe there are some people that would really want a committed legal relationship of more. but, it doesn't seem like that many.
If I wanted more than wife, or other kind of arrangement, I think it makes more sense to have that a private relationship.
But, I think some aspects of "marriage" should possibly be extended. Like I understand that in cases of severe illness, hospitals only allow visitors of very close relationship like spouses. I think I should be able to legally pick whomever I would want for that kind of situation. It wouldn't mean the person had any other legal rights. Just the right to see me if they wanted if I was near death in the hospital.
Maybe some kind of legal 'close friend' assignment that might have some limited basic rights in some of these kinds of situations. Not sure. Just thinking aloud.
See the whole illusion of freedom this country gives us is sickening. "Land of the free and home of the brave.", more like "Land of the sheep and home of the McDonalds." If everyone used common sense with this shit the United States would be such a better place. If someone wants to marry 2 or 3 people who gives a fuck? You don't have to watch them have a threesome. Shit is just too crazy. Freedom must mean something else to 99% of the population.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Basically, my argument against polygamy as a legal venture is primarily that of practicality. You have one of 4 people that want out, say. I'm sure it could be done, but, a mess.
No more a mess than a divorce between a 1 man/1 woman marriage. Some of them are just "let's divide everything up equally and call it a day", some are legal battles that last for years and no one ends up satisfied.
QuoteAnd, just from my experience, it seems to me that people who want a committed legal relationship want it to be a couple.
Most people in the US now, probably. In the 60s? MANY relationships were many men/many women. And as long as no one felt taken advantage of, everyone was happy. When one or another member of the "marriage" wanted to leave, he or she did. I can't remember any breakups lasting as long as it would have taken to get to an attorney's office.
QuoteI suppose maybe there are some people that would really want a committed legal relationship of more. but, it doesn't seem like that many.
You want what you grow up to consider normal. A kid raised in a fundy Christian home considers the Bible to be the literal word of God, every word of his pastor to be a direct order from God, and if it's a woman and she's raised to believe that no woman should ever attempt to teach any man, she thinks that's just fine. Kids raised in a multiple marriage would think that a 1M1W marriage was weird.
QuoteIf I wanted more than wife, or other kind of arrangement, I think it makes more sense to have that a private relationship.
To you. But why should that be forced on everyone? Why shouldn't their version of "makes more sense" be forced on you?
Once you invoke "normal", it has no place in the law. That's a personal value judgment.
I want to be allowed to have a 1M1W marriage, but I don't want to impose that on people who consider some other arrangement better for them. As long as they're all rational consenting adult humans, it's none of my concern.
Quote from: "Colanth"In the 60s? MANY relationships were many men/many women.
And they wanted it a legalized commitment with the hope and expectation for it to be life long?
At any rate, I'm not terribly opposed to it. I'm still not convinced it is necessary.
Quote from: "ZachyFTW"If everyone used common sense with this shit the United States would be such a better place.
I believe
that was the intention of the founding fathers.
Quote from: "Broede"Quote from: "Plu"Quote"How would you feel if your wife wanted to marry another man?"
It's not just a cop-out, it's a bullshit argument. How any one person feels about the subject is completely irrelevant to the fact that there's millions of people out there who might think differently, and who should also be free to live life as they want to enjoy it.
It's kinda like asking "how would you feel if you had to marry someone of the same gender?". It's completely stupid to ask. If you don't want your wife to marry another man, discuss that shit with her and explain why you don't want it. Don't make a law to forbid the whole practice for everyone just because you're not interested in it.
Which is exactly why I played the devil's advocate card. While you or I don't want to do something, there's absolutely no solid reason why we should arrest and vilify others who do. If only more people put themselves in the shoes of others. Hell -- didn't Jesus TEACH THAT?! To pick the beam from one's own eye FIRST? Worry about your own problems? It all boils down to a power trip. "I know what's best for you, better than you do."
*** complete foundation of religion ***
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Colanth"In the 60s? MANY relationships were many men/many women.
And they wanted it a legalized commitment with the hope and expectation for it to be life long?
Legalized, no. Most of them were, at best, opposed to the law at the time. (This was the time of protest. There was a protest somewhere on any given day, usually more than one.) Did they hope it would last forever? Those who thought past next Tuesday probably did. (And I know couples - there's such a thing as societal pressure - who are still together now, after 50 years or more.)