[andyt]

What was it called then? I don't see how it's substantially different than Asian marriages or whatever?

What's changed is the idea of romantic marriage taking precedence vs it being an economic arrangement, although the latter is still important as well.

[sandorski]

"Marriage" is a weirding word. Soon a massive worm sign will swallow up the US bringing wailing and gnashing of teeth unlike any seen before!

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

There's nothing sexy about polygamists. The vast, vast majority of them are fundamentalist religious cranks...

So because they live a lifestyle you don't approve of you feel it's okay to deny them their Constitutional right to the dignity of marriage?

I, like many others, agree with you on the polygamy front, as seen one of your own pro-polygamy threads here. However, there's a significant difference between legalizing polygamy and gay marriage, especially considering the extensive use of "two people" and "couple" in Kennedy's decision.

It's because, unlike gay marriage, there are ongoing concerns about the impacts of polygamy on women and minors, and there isn't a large community capable of demonstrating that the norms of such relationships have changed much from their religiously fundamentally (and, apparently, biblically relevant) roots. Also, unlike gay marriage, the question of viability of state intervention in providing tax breaks, income support, or social services is still on the books. Among other issues I personally go into here.

Also, unlike being gay, engaging in a polygamous relationship actually requires a choice to engage in the lifestyle, whereas being gay isn't optional. In the past, you've rejected the personal experience of literally tens of millions of gay people and the clinical experience of millions of doctors and psychologists (see: the death of conversion therapy) in recognizing it as a choice, but courts and states do recognize the distinction today. That distinction is a key component to the legalization of gay marriage in the USA, and around the world.

This attempt at legalizing polygamy will fail like the others, and the reasons why are a Google search away. Whether it's court cases, debate sites, or one of the fifty million articles about the difference in the news, there's no shortage of sources providing the answer to that question of "why is polygamy different than gay marriage?"

You've been given such responses before, just for reference in case you've forgotten. The latter three are a little longer.

Just a reminder, Unsound is waiting for a response on another topic, if you have the time.

My thoughts, regardless.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Like guns aren't inherently bad, neither is polygamy.

***I don't know if Bart will like my post, or hate it.

I have to agree. While the FLDS led by that pervert Warren Jeffs are deluded and evil the fact remains that a growing number of polygamists who are not fundamentalist, child molesting Mormons are starting to come out of the woodwork.

So long as the polygamists were consenting adults I did not see any constructive reason for them to be bothered by the law - which is consistent with my belief in a fundamental human right to be left alone.

Prior to last week I would've vehemently opposed allowing polygamists to legally engage in multiple marriages.

Now I see no defensible reason whatsoever to deny them what the Supreme Court has now defined as a right to dignity that is found in state sanctioned marriage.

So where a week ago I stood for marriage as being between a man and a woman here I am a week later saying fuck it. Marriage as an institution is rendered meaningless so why not let everyone mock it? Marry your cat for all I care.

[BartSimpson]

Khar Khar:

This attempt at legalizing polygamy will fail like the others, and the reasons why are a Google search away.

This may hold true in Canada but in the US such arguments are based on precedent and the precedent is now found in last week's Supreme Court decision which enumerated a right to dignity which justified the legal recognition of gay marriage.

The irony of so many pro-gay marriage people opposing polygamous marriage is that you folks are using the same arguments people like me used against gay marriage.

So who's the narrow-minded bigot now?

[fifeboy]

raydan raydan:

The mayor's male and the alligator's female, so I think it's OK. The only problem is that the alligator's only 3... how old is that in human years?

I believe that would be 130, give or take a few decades!

[ShepherdsDog]

Unsound Unsound:

As well, should be mentioned that polygamy was called marriage even in Bart's favourite book.

Solomon anyone.....marriage was used by the powerful and wealthy for political and economic means.

[BartSimpson]

Unsound Unsound:

As well, should be mentioned that polygamy was called marriage even in Bart's favourite book.

[2Cdo]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Unsound Unsound:

As well, should be mentioned that polygamy was called marriage even in Bart's favourite book.

[martin14]

Khar Khar:

Also, unlike being gay, engaging in a polygamous relationship actually requires a choice to engage in the lifestyle, whereas being gay isn't optional.

Being married to one other person is also a choice to engage in the lifestyle,

and being gay has nothing to do with it.

[Khar]

Martin14, being gay is not a choice, being polyamorous is. If you want to allow heterosexual marriage than you'll want to allow homosexuality the same benefit for the same reasons. Polyamorous life is straight out a lifestyle choice in and of itself regardless of the status of marriage as a "lifestyle choice" if you so choose to semantically use it as such.

My thoughts anyways.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Khar Khar:

This attempt at legalizing polygamy will fail like the others, and the reasons why are a Google search away.

This may hold true in Canada but in the US such arguments are based on precedent and the precedent is now found in last week's Supreme Court decision which enumerated a right to dignity which justified the legal recognition of gay marriage.

The irony of so many pro-gay marriage people opposing polygamous marriage is that you folks are using the same arguments people like me used against gay marriage.

So who's the narrow-minded bigot now?

Actually, I have used no argument you have ever used against gay marriage for polygamous marriage (nor are your arguments against gay marriage particularly persuasive anyway in my view). Gay marriage doesn't have the complexity of polygamous relationships when it comes to state involvement, gay marriage is not rooted in religious fundamentalism, and gay marriage did not come with centuries of male dominated abuse of wives, just to mention those three issues from my last post, and I doubt you made any of those arguments on this forum. Just like you ignored those problems, you ignored wide swaths of my post here and my (and other peoples) prior posts which demonstrated marked differences between gay marriages and polygamous marriages, including parts of my posts you just chose to excise when responding here.

So, even though I never called you a narrow minded bigot, I am going to conclude that it's not "us folks" who are such people now. I even began my post by pointing out I support it, which again, was excised, and then demonstrated why the arguments are very different.

Similar precedent as seen in those prior posts of mine also demonstrate legal challenges failing in Utah and California. As much post also points out, Kennedy also heavily cemented the idea of "two people" into that decision. He is clearly distinguishing and defining marriage there, which is also precedence. I'm not happy with the dignity ruling but it doesn't open doors you think. This is all from a post you either selectively quoted from or from prior posts you ignored.

[Tricks]

andyt andyt:

What was it called then? I don't see how it's substantially different than Asian marriages or whatever?

What's changed is the idea of romantic marriage taking precedence vs it being an economic arrangement, although the latter is still important as well.

Probably just "Unions" in whatever language. Good question though, no idea.

[Jabberwalker]

If a group of people can figure out a way to make a marriage with each other, what possible harm would it do to me? Why would it be my business?