[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
You missed the part where I said that polygamy was an inherently oppressive institution (in this country) and it is proper to refuse to recognize and extend benefits to an arrangement that subjugates those subjected to it who DON’T consent in any real sense of the word.
You may not agree that this is how polygamy plays out in this country, but from everything I’ve read on it, that is what I think. So, yes, I AM advocating extending legal benefits to all consenting (non-oppressive, non-coercive) adult relationships. I don’t belief polygamy is one of those.
If I thought it was, I would not have a problem extending legal benefits to that either. Though I don’t think polygamy is the right waive to behave, even when freely entered. People do things all the time I don’t approve of. The way many people have conducted themselves in the confines of heterosexual marriage is worse and more damaging to the institution than anything I can think of that homosexuals will do. However, that has not tarnished the marital ideal.
I also acknowledged that robbing same sex couples of legal benefits would be appropriate if there was compelling evidence that extending benefits to them would fundamentally tarnish or damage civil marriage. But I don’t think it does. I haven’t found any arguments on this thread or outside internet-land to the contrary to be convincing. You don’t have to agree. That is the crucial lynchpin of this argument.
There’s a fundamental disconnect on how gay marriage in the civil world would effect marriage. If there wasn’t, there’d be no argument at all. I don’t see it being resolved any time soon.
No, I understand your polygamy argument, and I think it is inconsistent with the principle you base your support of gay marriage on.
I personally think polygamy can be an oppressive arrangement - though it doesn’t have to be inherently - but then, I don’t operate on the principle that some “right” exists to honor non-traditional relationships in law as a matter of “fairness”.
If you think that is a good principle - and you do - all you have to do is explain to those who want their non-traditional arrangements why that same principle gets abandoned even though its validity is the same.
You can’t.
And, you are locked into an antiquated notion of polygamy - in your mind, it conjures up fundamentalist weirdos at compounds. Get out a little. The clamor for recognizing multiple partners extends beyond your stereotype to all kinds of modern arrangements that aren’t the function of your vision of backwoods fundies.
As is, you don’t have to change your mind, but the original argument for protecting traditional marriage in this thread, when raised in defense, was stupidly derided as nothing but Paleolithic bigotry and “fear of progress” (laughable) - the predictable histrionics of the uninformed around here and a therapeutic cop out of the highest order - instead of being met on the merits.
In review, there is no “winner” and no one will change their minds - but if anything is clearer after 34 pages, it is that the defenders of traditional marriage, on balance, have actually spent some time considering the issue in depth, but, broadly speaking, the same cannot be said of the proponents, who seem confounded by the most basic arguments.
My argument is that polygamy should be prohibited to protect those who would be subjected to it that don’t truly consent to the arrangment but have no real choice. I am saying there are TWO arguments against recognizing polygamy and only ONE against gay marriage.
Polygamy: 1. It’s an offensive, abhorrent practice that is a perversion of tradition marriage. It offends our sensibilities as a culture. 2. It’s oppressive and unjust to those IN the marriage. Gay marriage: 1. It’s an offensive, abhorrent practice that is a perversion of tradition marriage. It offends our sensibilities as a culture. 2. No second argument. I don’t think argument one is a sufficient justification for prohibiting things such as hospital visitation rights and joint tax returns to those in committed, consensual relationships.
If this was the ONLY reason to refuse to recognize polygamay, then fine. That should be recognized too. The only reason to prohibit gay marriage is to protect a cultural conception of marriage and not to protect participants in gay relationships. In the absence of truly compelling evidence that it would cause damage to society at large, I don’t think that cuts it. And I haven’t found arguments that it would convincing.
I’m not really sure how I can be any clearer. The desire to prohibit gay marriage is all about OTHER people who are not party to the realationship. The desire to prohibit polygamy is at least as much to protect those who actually have a PERSONAL interest.
The fact that some polygamous relationships may be truly consensual and freely entered does not negate the fact that they should not be endorsed if they are, by and large, oppressive. You may not agree with the distinction. And may say that goal to protect society at large is just as worthy and that gay marriage is a real danger.
But the distinction is very real. Prohibition on gay marriage: to protect society. Prohibition on polygamy: to protect vulnerable, nonconsenting parties stuck in the realationship.
First of all there are already laws in place to prevent people from being forced into marriages.
I am not sure why you think it is necessary to have extra special laws to prevent people from being forced into polygamous marriages.
Then, in a polygamous society women are certainly not the victims you imagine them to be. Since there would be relatively few women left on the market even the most unattractive, stupid, alcoholic and temper tantrums throwing woman would find a partner. And this partner would treat her well because otherwise several others would already be standing in line.
So you cannot argue that it would harm women, it would most likely harm men much more.
If Hugh Hefner has 4 hot women now at the age of 80, multiply that with 20 million and then do the math on how often you would get laid.
And by what creatures.
Given the alternatives marrying a pony might start to make sense to you.
[/quote]
All that might be true in a polygamous SOCIETY. But this is not a society where polygamy has been culturally acceptable. And in this society, where it’s occured it has not been particularly pretty for the women involved, even with all the laws trying to prevent it, notwithstanding. What you’re talking about is polygyny in any case. True polygamy is not-gender specific. It could be polygyny. Less often it’s polyandry with one woman and many male spouses. It could be any combination thereof. In this society, it’s been taboo to an extent that it’s typically employed by one weirdo man who uses it to get his jollies and marry multiple young, vulnerable women who don’t consent in any real sense. It doesn’t have to be that way. If it became common and enough and accepted enough here that it was by and large a mutual, freely-entered, non-coercive arrangement, then any prohibitions might no longer be justified. Then the only reason to prohibit it would be that it’s distasteful to outsiders. As things exist, that’s not the only reason.
