This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
Joel Send a noteboard - 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
I specifically said at the beginning of my post that I was trying to get into this argument. I wanted to get a sampling of opinions on polygamy from a group that is not hung up on the traditional view of marriage. The reason I specifically addressed supporters of gay marriage is because I know what most other people will say.
Lots of supporters of gay marriage affect an objective or even-handed position, when they are really just shilling for a special interest for the group with whom they sympathize. It is not really about "equality" and personal definitions and choices (since they are trying to strip everyone else of the right to choose to recognize their role-playing games as real or refuse the same), it is about obtaining a special privilege for homosexuals, which they agree with that group obtaining, whether out of sentiment or personal interest.
Marriage is a thing. You don't change its nature by adding a word to the label and making it appear that the true nature of the thing is actually only as aspect of the real nature. That is the view of proponents of marriage. The proponents of alternative domestic arrangements have their own agendas and are as beholden to them as anyone else. They will not be any more fair or impartial, because their reasons for their choice are just as personal and egocentric as anyone's.
People will always pick and choose what they do and do not recognize as valid. However, the Equal Protection Clause quite rightly forbids government doing so: The law must be the same for everyone, without prejudice. Advocates for LEGAL gay marriage, at least most of them, demand no "special" privilege for homosexuals, only that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
No one is suggesting homosexual marriage gain any benefits of inheritance, taxation, medical visitation/decisions etc. except those heterosexual marriage does. Under the Equal Protection Clause they are EQUALLY in/valid.
Religiously, the dangers of government regulating sacraments are precisely why the First Amendments Non-Establishment Clause exists; I see no reason to ignore and every reason to observe it. Legally, joint ownership and responsibility issues are so critical they "traditionally" preempted romance and religion.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
- 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
1370 Views
Legal rights.
- 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
776 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
376 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
368 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
- 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
707 Views
That's not what I'm saying
- 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
721 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
- 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
670 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
- 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
749 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
- 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
666 Views
The more fool you.
- 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
760 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
- 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
694 Views
*NM*
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
- 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
649 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
- 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
756 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
- 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
718 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
- 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
822 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
- 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
714 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
- 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
768 Views
*NM*
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
- 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
657 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
- 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
691 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
- 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
366 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
- 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
763 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
- 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
865 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
394 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
- 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
684 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
- 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
734 Views
Indeed
- 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
791 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
- 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
1066 Views
And so?
- 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
699 Views
Re: And so?
- 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
866 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
372 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
- 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
629 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
- 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
691 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
- 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
659 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
- 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
608 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
- 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
667 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
- 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
601 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
- 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
648 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
- 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
747 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
- 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
672 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
- 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
606 Views
Much less force, yes.
- 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
614 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
687 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
630 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
- 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
651 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
- 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
707 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
- 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
339 Views