On Gay Marriage, Polygamy Arguments, and Likely Outcomes

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by Annie, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Kruthammer has a piece out that has everyone on the blogosphere in an uproar. BTW, he is agnostic or atheistic, no one is sure. He has an interesting take, coming from where he does. It provoke Althouse and this response. Well more than just this, as the number of comments hours ago show. For those interested, follow the links:


    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_12-2006_03_18.shtml#1142624607

     
  2. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    I don't have anything to reply, other than that I think allowing anything other than traditional marriage WILL start a slippery slope.

    And that polygamy has a high "ick" factor. :shiver:
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Thanks Mom, did you check out †he links?
     
  4. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    I disagree to an extent. I think if civil unions (marriage if people want to be so picky as to the name) are granted, it won't happen. Polygamy in and of itself causes a lot of emotional trauma (okay, it did for me) and yes, the "ick" factor weighs in kinda heavily there too.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    And your point? Hard to tell with this waffle post. :dunno:
     
  6. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49
    That's a bit unfair to say because how many people use the "ick factor" against gay marriage? And the trauma that you felt from polygamy-- how many people aren't going to say that gay marriage won't cause the same trauma? Not many-- in fact that's the reason why many people here are against it; they don't want the children to "suffer." As "icky" as both gay marriage and polygamy are to me, I still support both because I believe that a legal marriage should only be confined to consent (which is how I fend off the morons who compare gay marriage to fucking your dog). However, to support one and not the other is hypocritical because both are deviations from the "traditional" marriage, but are still within the boundaries of consent.

    Perhaps the best point in the article is the issue of marriage as an "economic" union. Many devout religious followers will claim that marriage is derived from religion, therefore it should remain traditional to its roots. The problem with that argument is that marriage, once in the hands of the state, has no religious boundaries. If it did, then why is adultery legal? The fact remains that marriage by the state is the union of individuals through a LEGAL standard, not by God's standard. If you want to be married by God, then you go to the church and do it. And by no means have I ever supported gay marriage in church-- that's a private institution and it has every right to define marriage as it sees fit.

    Once again, I emphasize the economic standpoint of marriage by the government. Why can't two gay people have the same economic advantages as a straight married couple? There is no reasonable answer to that.

    The only objection that I would have with polygamy is that only two of the married bunch should be granted the economic sanctions by the government. How would it be fair if most people marry one spouse and get those benefits, but then the polygamists can marry everyone in Utah and have a huge advantage with the benefits? If we legalize polygamy (which, of course, we won't), all people within the marriage should be legally recognized, but only two should get the benefits. Or they can spread out the benefits for two amongst all (I'm not quite aware of the intricacies of marital benefits, but the spreading out thing sounds good if possible).
     
  7. ho hum
    Offline

    ho hum Slightly above average.

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    On the slope of the curve.
    Ratings:
    +1
    If you want to argue polygamy from a "Biblical" perspective, you would be hard pressed to deny that it was a common and sanctioned practice in Israel. If you want to do the same for homosexual marriages, you couldn't do it.

    If you want to remove religion from the argument, you can do whatever you want.
     
  8. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Gay marriage - sure let em I don't care.

    Polygamy among consenting adults - sure let em I don't care

    Polygamy when kids are involved - NO!!
     
  9. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    oh I dunno.. David and Johnathan were, uh, pretty close...
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    And if you wanted to remove the fact that none of the posters from 2006 that posted above regularly posts here anymore you might have someone to argue with.:lol:
     

Share This Page