Should Polygamy be illegal?

[Alcon]

I think a lot of the gay marriage debate is trying to mingle in all different emotions and feelings people have the issue, it isn't a clear cut issue that can decided using numbers and fancy equations.

Yeah...welcome to reality, where things are not so clear-cut morally.

It is an issue that someone usually feels one way or the other because a set of beliefs they have.  The "slippery slope" argument I had before was certainly valid, but my biggest objection to gay marriage is a personal belief that God intends for marriage to be between a man and a woman.  You can say "God shouldn't shape beliefs", but my belief is shaped on that and it is reprehensible for someone to tell me I shouldn't be able to believe that and fight that as much as my heart desires.  There is no reason I cannot object to something for the simple reason I find it morally reprehensible, if you would like to discuss civil unions I have much more mixed feelings on that.  However, the institution of marriage should no way be extended to gay people.

That's fine.  Your religious beliefs dictate your position here.  Whatever.  We don't share the same religious beliefs.  But don't try to rationalize it away with things you don't actually believe to and can't support (like you did in this topic).

[AkSaber]

No, I wouldn't legalize it.

[Verily]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Listen to your arguments before typing them.

[useful idiot]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

[Ebowed]

The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish.

So we should condone arranged marriages?

[useful idiot]

The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish.

So we should condone arranged marriages?

I don't know how on earth you got that out of what I said. I simply stated what the traditional definition of marriage was, and I didn't say a word about arranged marriages or what anyone should be "condoning".

[Alcon]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

Did I argue that?  And while I agree with you that supporting gay marriage may be "just as bad" on that level, I don't complain that people are forcing their views on others.  That would be hypocritical.

I agree on that level.  However, it's not like that is the only level at which the issue can be analyzed.  I can support gay marriage for reasons unrelated to which is the less forceful belief.  Of course...

(I'm assuming this was directed to me, because I was the one who mentioned "two people who love each other."  If I'm wrong, sorry.)

[useful idiot]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

Did I argue that?  And while I agree with you that supporting gay marriage may be "just as bad" on that level, I don't complain that people are forcing their views on others.  That would be hypocritical.

I agree on that level.  However, it's not like that is the only level at which the issue can be analyzed.  I can support gay marriage for reasons unrelated to which is the less forceful belief.  Of course...

(I'm assuming this was directed to me, because I was the one who mentioned "two people who love each other."  If I'm wrong, sorry.)

No it wasn't directed toward you. I had read your posts but didn't recall that you had used that phrase, sorry about the misunderstanding.

[Alcon]

No it wasn't directed toward you. I had read your posts but didn't recall that you had used that phrase, sorry about the misunderstanding.

Ah, no problem.  Sorry for being presumptive - I actually realized I was probably wrong about who it was directed to, but I was too lazy to edit it. 

(Sorry again.)

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Listen to your arguments before typing them.

Just because you don't like my argument does not make it wrong.  Certain beliefs, and for this issue on both sides, are nothing but personal ideals.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

One man one woman marriage is unnatural and needs to be outlawed if we're going to be getting into the business of outlawing marriage based on arbitrary things like DWTL's arguments against gay marriage or polygamy.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

If by Traditional you mean Post-17\18th Century Europe and "the West" then you are correct. Otherwise, no.

And what could be more socially engineered that the idea of Marriage in the first place?

[useful idiot]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

If by Traditional you mean Post-17\18th Century Europe and "the West" then you are correct. Otherwise, no.

And what could be more socially engineered that the idea of Marriage in the first place?

I would say that would be the definition in post 4th or 5th century Europe, and excluding concubines and other extra-marital relationships, before that in Roman law as well. In "the West" there was no concept of gay marriage, for instance, but I assume some pagan groups in un-Romanized areas practiced something different from monogamous marriages. Traditional, in an American sense, means derived from English and wider European traditions, and in that case could mean absolutely nothing other than 1 Man + 1 Woman. Of course Christianity has a major influence and to my knowledge nothing other than one man + one woman has ever been a norm in Christianity. Chinese or Indian traditions, to use as examples, are not ones that carry over in the U.S., in law at least.

I wouldn't consider marriage in and of itself social engineering, because its a contract for the benefit of the people involved, not an attempt to force a particular society to change it's attitudes. A government imposing marriage in the traditional "western" sense on a group of people whose traditional culture it conflicts with would be social engineering. Marriage in and of itself arises in nearly every culture to fit and exemplify that culture's norms, that's why some cultures practiced polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, etc etc.

In any case, the government shouldn't be imposing a traditional or non-taditional form of marriage to the exclusion of others, simply because they don't have the moral authority to do so. What gives Barbara Boxer and Tom Coburn the right to tell people how, when, or whom to get married as long as they are consenting adults? They may have the power, but certainly not the authority.

[Verily]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Listen to your arguments before typing them.

Just because you don't like my argument does not make it wrong.  Certain beliefs, and for this issue on both sides, are nothing but personal ideals.

You're not making an argument. You're not providing any premises on which to base your conclusion, you're just stating your conclusion over and over again and plugging your ears.

[Person Man]

My two cents because I wasn't here when the argument started:

Ideally it should be legal, but society isn't ready for it and that's because government sponsership of marriage is just bad government. Sure, they want to promote healthy families, but using sectarian institutions as a yard stick is a bit lazy and inaccurate even if there is a high coorelation between  healthy families and marriage and a healthy belief in God. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Listen to your arguments before typing them.

Just because you don't like my argument does not make it wrong.  Certain beliefs, and for this issue on both sides, are nothing but personal ideals.

You're not making an argument. You're not providing any premises on which to base your conclusion, you're just stating your conclusion over and over again and plugging your ears.

Gay marriage provides all classic liberal arguments and finally number #1 has emerged, "I said it and I think I'm smarter so I must be right."  My reasoning is that not only is it morally reprehensible, but you open up the door to polygamy and other mockeries of marriage.

[Person Man]

Then again, you are saying you feel it is a mockery so you must be right. That's why government should not marry people. We have opened the door to an artificial discourse where whinning actually constitutes  a real objective argument.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

If by Traditional you mean Post-17\18th Century Europe and "the West" then you are correct. Otherwise, no.

And what could be more socially engineered that the idea of Marriage in the first place?

I would say that would be the definition in post 4th or 5th century Europe, and excluding concubines and other extra-marital relationships, before that in Roman law as well. In "the West" there was no concept of gay marriage, for instance, but I assume some pagan groups in un-Romanized areas practiced something different from monogamous marriages. Traditional, in an American sense, means derived from English and wider European traditions, and in that case could mean absolutely nothing other than 1 Man + 1 Woman. Of course Christianity has a major influence and to my knowledge nothing other than one man + one woman has ever been a norm in Christianity. Chinese or Indian traditions, to use as examples, are not ones that carry over in the U.S., in law at least.

I wouldn't consider marriage in and of itself social engineering, because its a contract for the benefit of the people involved, not an attempt to force a particular society to change it's attitudes. A government imposing marriage in the traditional "western" sense on a group of people whose traditional culture it conflicts with would be social engineering. Marriage in and of itself arises in nearly every culture to fit and exemplify that culture's norms, that's why some cultures practiced polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, etc etc.

In any case, the government shouldn't be imposing a traditional or non-taditional form of marriage to the exclusion of others, simply because they don't have the moral authority to do so. What gives Barbara Boxer and Tom Coburn the right to tell people how, when, or whom to get married as long as they are consenting adults? They may have the power, but certainly not the authority.

Which is of course one of the major reasons in favour of Gay Marriage - tax Benefits, etc. I agree with you on the rest of your post - Though Medieval traditions were far more liberal than ours, especially regarding Divorce and Polygamy - neither was santionced by the church but alot of the Church's power then was political rather than a true moral guardian (and no Medieval pope could possibly lecture on morality without being a hypocrite...)

[DownWithTheLeft]

Then again, you are saying you feel it is a mockery so you must be right. That's why government should not marry people. We have opened the door to an artificial discourse where whinning actually constitutes  a real objective argument.

Your right let's put it to the people and see what happens, except when gay marriage activists realized they kept getting shot down, even in dark blue Oregon

[Alcon]

Your right let's put it to the people and see what happens, except when gay marriage activists realized they kept getting shot down, even in dark blue Oregon

Dark blue Oregon, where, out of 100 voters, 51 will have voted for Kerry.  "Dark blue."  Right.

Your religion considers it a sin.  Stop playing moralist.  No one is being hurt by what they do except them, even in your religious views.  You may disagree with my morals, but that doesn't really mean what I believe in is less "moral" than you; just different.  It shouldn't be a point of attack.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Your right let's put it to the people and see what happens, except when gay marriage activists realized they kept getting shot down, even in dark blue Oregon

Dark blue Oregon, where, out of 100 voters, 51 will have voted for Kerry.  "Dark blue."  Right.

Your religion considers it a sin.  Stop playing moralist.  No one is being hurt by what they do except them, even in your religious views.  You may disagree with my morals, but that doesn't really mean what I believe in is less "moral" than you; just different.  It shouldn't be a point of attack.

I was referring to Oregon socially which is a liberal state.  While you believe no one else is hurt, Christians everywhere are spit on when they see the government show such blatent disrespect for morality.  An endorsement of one faith or belief is dangerous, and many who oppose the Catholic Church wishes for the government to supplant it with the United Church of Liberalism

[John Dibble]

I was referring to Oregon socially which is a liberal state.  While you believe no one else is hurt, Christians everywhere are spit on when they see the government show such blatent disrespect for morality.

Look at the flip side - homosexuals everywhere feel spit on when the government makes them feel to be second class citizens for something that is really outside of their control. All they want is equal treatment for their partnerships by the government. Most of them could care less whether your church feels their marriage is legitimate or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet you seem to have no problem with government endorsing the belief that marriage should be one man one woman.

[Ebowed]

While you believe no one else is hurt, Christians everywhere are spit on when they see the government show such blatent disrespect for morality.  An endorsement of one faith or belief is dangerous, and many who oppose the Catholic Church wishes for the government to supplant it with the United Church of Liberalism

Oh brother.

First of all, regarding Oregon, there has obviously been a fairly dramatic shift on the issue over the last decade.  Yes, a gay marriage ban passed in Oregon, but previous anti-gay referendums which were more condemning failed in the state.  Twenty years ago, a gay marriage ban would have likely passed with over 70% of the vote.  The fact of the matter is that America no longer agrees with your view that homosexuality is inherently immoral and reprehensible.  People just adjust slowly to change, and most states aren't ready for gay marriage yet.

As for Christians being spit upon by the goverment, that's a load of crap.  The United States government proudly displays "In God We Trust" on all of its currency, people in Congress who vote against resolutions affirming "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance all but end their careers in doing so, and there is no way for an atheist or Muslim to be elected nationwide.  Christians make up 70% of the U.S. population, gays might make up 10% or less.  Which of these.. erm.. minorities is being spit upon?  The one which is a religion that you have to be a part of or a large segment of the country views you as hellbound scum, or the one which is a sexual orientation where people will hate you just for who you are?

[Gustaf]

Polygamy is a bad idea. Whether it should be illegal or not I'm not entirely sure. It isn't a really big issue to me though. Few people get hurt badly either way.

[Gustaf]

Your right let's put it to the people and see what happens, except when gay marriage activists realized they kept getting shot down, even in dark blue Oregon

Dark blue Oregon, where, out of 100 voters, 51 will have voted for Kerry.  "Dark blue."  Right.

Your religion considers it a sin.  Stop playing moralist.  No one is being hurt by what they do except them, even in your religious views.  You may disagree with my morals, but that doesn't really mean what I believe in is less "moral" than you; just different.  It shouldn't be a point of attack.

That makes absolutely no sense. What would be the point of having morals if one doesn't believe that someone who lacks them is less moral? If it is true, for instance, that you are not less moral than me for not having my morals it must, I would say, also be true that I would not be less moral than I am now if I abandoned my morals. And then there seems to be no particular reason to refrain from doing it. And then I really have no morals worth the name.

Surely, any morality must contain the assumption that not following it makes you less moral?