Polygamy....

[Guest Derek L]

I don’t know if such a topic has been brought up before, but this opinion piece here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/31/marriage-died-in-2013/?intcmp=obnetwork

Does make several good points:

More than a year ago, when states began to legalize gay marriage, I argued that polygamy would be the natural result. If love between humans of legal age is the only condition required to have the state issue a marriage license, then it is irrational to assert that two men or two women can have such feelings for one another, while three women and a man, or two men and a woman, cannot.

I have met would-be polygamists who cohabitate as groups and I can tell you that they seemed to be very committed to one another, to be very intimate and to be “in love.”

So, should polygamy be made legal? If so, how would it then work for taxes and benefits?

And one other point made:

It will also, eventually, lead to test cases in which a few unusual sisters and brothers insist that they can marry, because they are in love and promise not to procreate, but, instead, to use donor eggs or sperm.And, I predict, the courts will agree with them.

And what of marriages between siblings/cousins? If they’re adults, why not right?

I’ve no opposition to gay marriage, so why not the above examples? Potentially, a polygamous marriage, combined with income splitting, could be a real financial benefit to a household, as could the potential for having one of the spouses staying home with children and/or a third income devoted to retirement savings etc…..Think of the potential, positive, possibilities…….after all, are not humans a social group naturally? When did monogamous relationships start? With the advent of Organized Religion? So couldn’t it be said that humans naturally form complex social structures intended to cooperate and in turn counter competing groups….Why not a strengthened economic marriage?

[Shady]

It's a pretty logical point, that's impossible to argue against.

[bush_cheney2004]

All of these issues came up early on as logical extensions of state sanctioned marriage contracts between consenting adults. I think the major line of reasoning was a state compelling interest to outlaw such marriages compared to married couples. I have often broached sibling and parent/adult child marriages to force logical thinking on to those who prefer a more biased view. They would have nothing to do with it, regardless of logic.

Edited January 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

It's a pretty logical point, that's impossible to argue against.

I certainly agree…….As long as it’s between consenting adults, why not?

[BubberMiley]

Gay marriage became legal only because societal standards evolved to where homosexuality was no longer considered unacceptable by the majority population. The argument that polygamy is the next step after accepting gay marriage is only a compelling argument among those who still find gay marriage unacceptable. To the rest of us, it's no comparison.

[Guest Derek L]

All of these issues came up early on as logical extensions of state sanctioned marriage contracts between consenting adults. I think the major line of reasoning was a state compelling interest to outlaw such marriages compared to married couples. I have often broached sibling and parent/adult child marriages to force logical thinking on to those who prefer a more biased view. They would have nothing to do with it, regardless of logic.

Logically speaking, I wonder if those opposed would do so at the behest of perceived morality and/or the economic edge it might foster some couples over others or individuals.

How did the Hippy communes work it I wonder?

[bush_cheney2004]

One doesn't have to be "gay" to marry the same gender, so that argument is moot.

[bush_cheney2004]

Logically speaking, I wonder if those opposed would do so at the behest of perceived morality and/or the economic edge it might foster some couples over others or individuals.

How did the Hippy communes work it I wonder?

Right...think of all the entitlement and tax law gaming that would go on based on marital status. I don't think the Hippies were into marriage per se.

[Guest Derek L]

Gay marriage became legal only because societal standards evolved to where homosexuality was no longer considered unacceptable by the majority population. The argument that polygamy is the next step after accepting gay marriage is only a compelling argument among those who still find gay marriage unacceptable. To the rest of us, it's no comparison.

And that very well might be the viewpoint of the opinion piece from the OP……..We’re trying to take this from a logical perspective, not one based on perceived morality and prejudices such as yourself.

[bush_cheney2004]

And that very well might be the viewpoint of the opinion piece from the OP……..We’re trying to take this from a logical perspective, not one based on perceived morality and prejudices such as yourself.

Good luck with that....the barriers to marriage were just moved, not eliminated.

[Guest Derek L]

Right...think of all the entitlement and tax law gaming that would go on based on marital status. I don't think the Hippies were into marriage per se.

Why not though, just as one would argue the benefits of income splitting for a “regular” couple, shouldn’t those within a polygamist marriage be entitled to the same form of benefit?

[Guest Derek L]

Good luck with that....the barriers to marriage were just moved, not eliminated.

But why couldn't those same forces that moved the barriers towards gay marriage be applied here?

[Shady]

Gay marriage became legal only because societal standards evolved to where homosexuality was no longer considered unacceptable by the majority population. The argument that polygamy is the next step after accepting gay marriage is only a compelling argument among those who still find gay marriage unacceptable. To the rest of us, it's no comparison.

Your statement is illogical. If more than two adults wish to be married, what business is it of yours? What harm does it cause you? If gender isn't an issue for marriage, why is a number? Sounds like you may be a little bigoted. There's no logical argument against allowing multiple adults to marry, now that courts have decided that gender doesn't matter either.

[Shady]

And that very well might be the viewpoint of the opinion piece from the OP……..We’re trying to take this from a logical perspective, not one based on perceived morality and prejudices such as yourself.

Exactly. His argument is that discrimination is ok, if not enough people in society find the discriminating act acceptable. If that was the prevailing mindset back in the 50s and 60s, civil rights and unsegrated schools would have had to wait another two or three decades.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not though, just as one would argue the benefits of income splitting for a “regular” couple, shouldn’t those within a polygamist marriage be entitled to the same form of benefit?

Yes, but the state would argue that it has a compelling interest to prevent n partners getting married and reaping such benefits. So called "gay marriage" is still modeled after societal norms for "couples", not groups.

[bush_cheney2004]

But why couldn't those same forces that moved the barriers towards gay marriage be applied here?

They could and should be, but I expect a better legal challenge based on religious freedom(s).

[gunrutz]

Gay marriage became legal only because societal standards evolved to where homosexuality was no longer considered unacceptable by the majority population. The argument that polygamy is the next step after accepting gay marriage is only a compelling argument among those who still find gay marriage unacceptable. To the rest of us, it's no comparison.

Your failure to understand the comparison does not make it less valid, unless of course your argument is more along the lines of any abortion legistlation is just a way of back door restrcitions on the practice, a typical, empty argument of the left. In any case, i see no reason why anyone can't be married, or any number, it is all just semantics. The government has no say on who lives in my house or who i choose to sleep with, government marriage is meanigless besides some economic benefit, it doesnt and shouldnt sanction the morality of any relationship.

[Bob Macadoo]

The government has no say on who lives in my house or who i choose to sleep with, government marriage is meanigless besides some economic benefit, it doesnt and shouldnt sanction the morality of any relationship.

What external body can "sanction morality" then? I kinda thought thats why we developed laws.

I'd say like most expansions of gov't sanctioned morality, it should provide no further benefit to those that are in the circle. Tax benefits included.

[BubberMiley]

Sounds like you may be a little bigoted. There's no logical argument against allowing multiple adults to marry, now that courts have decided that gender doesn't matter either.

I'm a lot bigoted against incest, bestiality---a whole bunch of things homophobic people try to equate homosexuality with. But the court didn't "decide that gender doesn't matter". They decided that public opinion had shifted on the issue. You can try and shift public opinion further to include polygamy if you like. I figured that was the reason Romney was nominated last year. Edited January 13, 2014 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm a lot bigoted against incest, ...

What's your problem with incest between consenting adults ? Why do you always presume and equate marriage to sexual preferences and activity, when that needn't be the case at all ?

[Guest Derek L]

They could and should be, but I expect a better legal challenge based on religious freedom(s).

Oh I wouldn’t support forced or underage marriages by any stretch, but as pointed out, some people do live a “swinging lifestyle” so what business is it of mine or the “State”……As such, they too should be afforded the same marriage rights.

[Guest Derek L]

Your failure to understand the comparison does not make it less valid, unless of course your argument is more along the lines of any abortion legistlation is just a way of back door restrcitions on the practice, a typical, empty argument of the left. In any case, i see no reason why anyone can't be married, or any number, it is all just semantics. The government has no say on who lives in my house or who i choose to sleep with, government marriage is meanigless besides some economic benefit, it doesnt and shouldnt sanction the morality of any relationship.

And that's the rub......shouldn't consenting adults also be afforded the same economic benefit? I think yes, as one can only argue against such a economic unions from the viewpoint of their own perceived morality.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh I wouldn’t support forced or underage marriages by any stretch, but as pointed out, some people do live a “swinging lifestyle” so what business is it of mine or the “State”……As such, they too should be afforded the same marriage rights.

The presumption is that we are always speaking in terms of consenting adults, not minors. But several states and provinces permit such marriages today, so there is no consistency even in that regard.

Edited January 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

I'm a lot bigoted against incest, bestiality---a whole bunch of things homophobic people try to equate homosexuality with. But the court didn't "decide that gender doesn't matter". They decided that public opinion had shifted on the issue. You can try and shift public opinion further to include polygamy if you like. I figured that was the reason Romney was nominated last year.

I agree with you on bestiality, fore animals are clearly not equipped to consent the same way a person might, as such that would fall under animal cruelty.

[Guest Derek L]

The presumption is that we are always speaking in terms of consenting adults, not minors. But several states and provinces permit such marriages today, so there is no consistency even in that regard.

Well darn it…….We need consistency!!!