Incoming

Given a concept of "marriage" as a certain legal contract between two people, what does the sex of the people involved do to actually change that legal contract? Nothing? Then we cannot deny marriage to people on the basis of the sex of the participants. But, given a concept of "marriage" as a certain legal contract between two people, what does the number of the people involved do to actually change that legal contract? A lot. Therefore, we may or may not conclude that we should deny marriage to people based on the number of participants. The fact that same-sex marriage does not change marriage means that the arguments in support of same-sex marriage do not equate to arguments in support of polygamous marriage. Same-sex marriage is about recognizing that the fundamental contract remains identical to what it was before. But polygamous marriage results in changes to the fundamental contract. We might decide that we ought to change the contract, but that is irrelevant. Polygamous marriage changes the contract of marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn't. Ergo, the reasons that support same-sex marriage do not transfer to polygamous marriage.

There are specific legal and financial questions that need to be answered with regard to polygamy that makes it distinct from same-sex marriage. It's a completely different argument. Sex is not number. The arguments for or against marriage restrictions on the basis of number will not be found in the arguments for or against marriage restrictions on the basis of sex. There may very well be good reasons to remove the restrictions on marriage to only two people, but it is not up to those of us who are arguing for equal marriage for all regardless of sexual orientation to show how they don't apply. It is up to those who advocate marriage for more than two people to explain why there is a problem.

As a simple example: "Same-sex" marriage doesn't alter the substantive contract of marriage in any way. There are no rights that a "wife" has over a "husband" such that a "wife" having a "wife" would be denied or granted such. Similarly, there are no protections a "husband" has by dint of having a "wife" that he would be denied or granted were he to have a "husband."

But with marriage between more than two people, we have to ask, "What do you mean by 'marriage'?" Specifically, do you mean a "hub-and-spoke" marriage or do you mean a "maximally interconnected" marriage? That is, when there are only two people, then to say that "A and B" are married necessarily means that A is married to B and B is married to C.

But if we have A, B, and C, then there are a couple ways to look at it. A can be married to B and B can be married to C but A is not considered married to C. This is a "hub and spoke" concept. A "maximally interconnected" marriage would say that in order for there to be a marriage among the three, then all three have to be considered to be legally married to each other.

Both cases raise issues with the execution of the contract. For example, suppose we have a hub-and-spoke of A-B-C with A divorcing B. How exactly do we handle "community property"? Since B is financially obligated to A and C and thus also has the rewards of both A and C, does this mean C can make a claim on A since B owns part of A and C owns part of B? I don't know. There may very well be a good answer to this, but the sex of the participants isn't really going to help us out here and it isn't covered by current marriage law.

In a maximally interconnected marriage, this would seem to be answered (since they are all married to each other, they are all financially obligated and rewarded by the others), but what about the question of children in a divorce? Exactly what are the obligations and rights of the non-biological parent? Again, there may very well be a good answer to this, but the sex of the participants isn't really going to help us out here and it isn't covered by current marriage law.

flags

I thought the guy in the previous post was banned? I'm pretty sure he is going to join the ignore list for me.

Alsatian

Poppy-cock, Incoming. The cat is out of the bag. Marriage is no longer defined traditionally, it is now an arbitrary social construct. As such, it can be defined willy-nilly any friggin' way the body politic, the General Will, so chooses. Complications are far from presenting an impediment to such a redefinition.

If you want to argue the point, you ought to focus on the consideration of whether the general will is likely to swing this way. Is the general will going to embrace polygamous marriage? IF it did, there would be no barrier to adopting the suitable definitions and provisions to make it work. It would CERTAINLY be less complicated than many other progressive policies.

cr422

You can tell when a dude is completely out of gas when the derogatory personal remarks start appearing.

BigBuck22

And?

I also wasn't referring to just today. Neither is the link.

lmao Says the person who thinks global warming is just natural even though nothing supports that. It's even worse than just being a hypothesis.

More on the matter, of course the quote is going to say that. The quote is referring to a reason that's very specific. It's a fact that polygamy societies did worse. Nuff said.

An irrelevant and cute response.

Your marriage was questioned on this board and probably elsewhere. Be careful for what you wish for.

"Same-sex marriage is a nutty idea very recently advanced and approved of by people who believe that normal people should not have the right to keep abnormal people from setting bad examples by engaging in abnormal behavior."

If we want to pin it on something, reversing the ban on interracial marriage got the ball rolling.

But in the future, the arguments for a ban on polygamy will be weaker, since we'll have sex robots in several decades.

They upheld the ban. Basically citing that "hypothesis" as the reason. How is that not relevant, yet you can dodge and weave with cute responses?

So premarital sex is okay? That's how we get unwanted babies, you know.

What derogatory remarks? I just pointed out previously that the same argument can be made about partners with large age gaps.

And if you don't like it, why do you always talk negatively about gays? So whatever, man.

sachiko

I don't think it's unreasonable to foresee a movement to legitimize polygamy. As we saw with the same-sex marriage campaign, a strident minority willing to make a lot of noise in support of their cause would be required, I think. An argument with some emotional appeal might also be required.

After all, this Supreme Court decision was not about gay rights. No law ever barred gays from marrying. While the argument was about "equality," the Court's decision was about redefining marriage. You don't really need to redefine marriage to permit polygamy. That form of marriage exists in the world today. It's my understanding that Islam allows a man to have up to four wives, and it's apparently fairly common in some parts of Africa. And while it's not accepted at this time, polygamy, or more specifically, polygyny, is part of the Judeo/Christian tradition.

So all you would need, I think, is an argument about how someone is being deprived of their "rights" and you win.

Incoming

Do I really need to remind you of Anatole France? You see, the laws preventing people from sleeping under bridges affect the rich just as much as they affect the poor. Ergo, the law is perfectly equal, right? Oh, never mind the fact that the rich person has another place to sleep legally while the poor person does not. Both rich and poor are not allowed to sleep under bridges.

A gay person, if not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, has nobody to marry. A polygamous person, if not allowed to marry two people, still has someone to marry. Ergo, the reasons for justifying polygamy have nothing to do with the reasons for justifying same-sex marriage. Polygamy is about taking a right that is already available and extending its scope. Same-sex marriage is about taking a right that doesn't exist and applying it equally.

When the Constitution was written, the word marriage did not mean "interracial," either. Does that mean the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving vs. Virginia in saying that marriage was a fundamental right and cannot be abridged on the basis of race? Isn't the Fourteenth Amendment clear enough?

Isn't that clear? Isn't that much better than trying to delineate the specific rights that are granted to everyone? If everybody is supposed to be treated equally, why not just say that? That's why anti-discrimination laws use generic terms. They don't say that blacks shouldn't be discriminated against. They say race is not an allowed criterion. If you try to come up with a list of races, you'll invariably miss one. So rather than try to come up with a list that will inevitably be wrong, you simply lump them all together: Race. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't list the ways in which you must treat people equally. Something would be left out. Instead, it states that all laws must be applied equally to all citizens. That includes gay people. Or don't gay people count?

Incorrect. It’s distinct from a practical perspective. The actual practice of marriage will change if we increase the number of people involved. It does not change if we change the sex of the participants. The practice of polygamy is different from the practice of monogamy. The addition of more people into the contract causes certain questions to be asked that need to be answered. It doesn't matter if those questions are big or small, the only thing that is relevant is that those questions exist.

Also, preventing polygamy does not prevent a person from getting married at all. Preventing same-sex marriage does.

But their "tradition" is a religious one. The law doesn't pay attention to religious traditions in this country. It's specifically prohibited from doing so.

There is no equal right infringement. A polygamous person, if not allowed to marry two people, still has someone to marry.

Incoming

There is a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail.

Fieldmouse

how does you sleeping with your boyfriend equal good? He might be the one who makes you bite the pillow a little harder but I fail to see why we care about your bedroom habits.

Serious, you're a little warped.

nodog

there are those who think more is better, but they are few.

Homoism is the last step anyone will see.