how do we counter the polygamy/incest argument?

  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 25, 2008 6:46 PM GMT
    these religious zealots bring it up every time the gay marriage discussion comes up. and i agree that the slippery slope counter-punch is a valid one in most arguments, probably this one too. and in my opinion, i dont have a problem with polygamy or incest as long as it is between CONSENTING ADULTS. If 5 women want to marry one man, then who are we, in this free country, to say they shouldn't be allowed to do so? and in terms of polygamy, i mean seriously, how many guys want to marry their mother or sister? and if by chance somebody does want to marry their brother or mother, then who are we stop them? freedom is what separates us from "those other" countries, right?

    despite my beliefs, they arent always that convincing to others... how do you do it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 8:41 PM GMT
    I would agree whole-heartedly. Even as a kid, I knew I wanted to have a harem, or at least a wife AND a husband.

    But then, people think I'm really weird anyway, so...icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 9:16 PM GMT
    This is a joke, right?

    There's a difference between rights, and respect. And, not that this is anything new, polygamy and incest are accepted in "those other" countries you speak of. Odd how this is acceptable in countries that don't accept freedom. Perhaps there's a reason we don't allow polygamy and they do. As for incest - GROSS! The ban on incest is not only for health reasons (as close relatives should not reproduce), but also because we don't need to marry our brother or sister - there are others out there.
  • vindog

    Posts: 1440

    Oct 25, 2008 9:25 PM GMT
    I disagree with incest.


    I am ok with consensual polygyny. In these countries that are ok with it and not freedom, its often due to the fact that their polygyny is not consensual and
    involves minors, which I DO NOT agree with.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 9:42 PM GMT
    Most (aka a hell of a lot) of polygamy relationships involve children not consenting adults. Most "consenting" adults are just so used to being married to one man and sharing him with 7 women. Look at those women from Texas last year with all their children.

    Incest is just terrible. Hello, Victorian England? Digging at the bottom of the gene pool? It is extremely unhealthy for future generations and that is what people really should be judging.
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 25, 2008 9:50 PM GMT
    this post was not meant to argue the merits of polygamy/incest, my question is how do you respond when that is the reason they are trying to restrict yours any my right to get married. if you are against those, they are going to respond that if you can be against those, then they can be against gay marriage... how do you respond?

    and i agree that incest takes it a bit further seeing as how there are health implications there... however, how can you say marriage among multiple consenting adults is NOT allowed, when marriage among two same sex (or different) IS allowed? If it's a free country, it's a free country, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 10:16 PM GMT
    The question is valid, and it's been brought up in another thread, although I can't spot it now.

    I read a recent interview from a polygamist advocate who is preparing legal arguments following recent acceptance from the states. When they do so, it just might start to hurt the gay marriage movement in other states.

    My personal view against polygamy marriage is that I can't see equality, which is how I view marriage (it's idealistic, I know). I've never personally known a successful three-or-moresome relationship. Maybe there are some. The practicing polygamists in ours and other countries are always 1 man and many women, usually submissive, and I can't stomach that scenario, even if they're willing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 10:58 PM GMT
    1969er saidThe question is valid, and it's been brought up in another thread, although I can't spot it now.

    I read a recent interview from a polygamist advocate who is preparing legal arguments following recent acceptance from the states. When they do so, it just might start to hurt the gay marriage movement in other states.

    My personal view against polygamy marriage is that I can't see equality, which is how I view marriage (it's idealistic, I know). I've never personally known a successful three-or-moresome relationship. Maybe there are some. The practicing polygamists in ours and other countries are always 1 man and many women, usually submissive, and I can't stomach that scenario, even if they're willing.




    I have to disagree with the premise that the polygamy & inscest arguement is merely just a canard of religious zealots. The simple problem is that the gay community is using the court system to force gay marriage. This unfortunately truly does open up the possibility of polygamy. If marriage is not between a man & a woman, then why would marriage between a man & another man be any less valid than a marriage with a man & 2 or 3 women? We can say that polygamists are immoral or that they are usually submissive or even repressive relationships. However, some of the same arguements can be used against gay marriage. Fairly or unfairly.

    As a society, I don't believe that we should be using the courts to force anybody's views or agenda on anybody else. If we as a community want to have gay marriage, lobby your local governments, state governments, congressmen and/or senators to pass a gay marriage law. That will also mean that there will be people who will be against gay marriage that we will need to debate & eventually overcome. However, if we truly believe that gay marriage should be granted, we will have to defend it with superior eason and arguements.

    Remember that if a judge grants gay marriage (and I believe that in both California & Connecticut, it was done through a 1 judge majority), it can be taken away just as easily. Passing a law would be much more of a substantive way to ensure gay marriage, and to have overall acceptance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 11:28 PM GMT
    Point to other countries. Netherlands. Denmark. Canada. Spain. South Africa. Norway. Prosperous countries where gay marriage is legal and none of that slippery slope stuff has happened. Or to countries that have civil unions. France. Germany. Australia. Britain. Sweden. Brazil.

    Then point to other countries. Sudan. Somalia. Afghanistan. Iran. Where just being gay is cause for capital punishment. Look at their prosperity. Or Pakistan. Bangladesh. Rwanda. Being gay will get you life in prison (which is probably a better life there anyway).

    So there...

    Gay makes life better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2008 11:36 PM GMT
    "instead of fucking us all the time, go fuck yourself"
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 26, 2008 12:35 AM GMT
    in response to philadelphia:

    why is passing a law a more valid way to bring about gay marriage than through the courts. the polygamy argument can still be brought up if gay marriage were legalized/delegalized throuigh the legislative process
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 1:35 AM GMT
    Hunter9 saidin response to philadelphia:

    why is passing a law a more valid way to bring about gay marriage than through the courts. the polygamy argument can still be brought up if gay marriage were legalized/delegalized throuigh the legislative process


    Because passing a law involves the legslative branch. A branch of govenment is elected by us. If we truly want acceptance of gay marriage, you need to change peoples minds. Passing a law is a much more powerful validation.

    The judicary is not elected, they are appointed. The judicary is therefore is not able to be held directly responsible for the decisions they make. The reason for this, is because a judge, specifically an appelete judge is supposed to interpt the laws based on either the state or US constitution. The constitution says nothing about marriage one way or the other. There is also not a single state constitution that says anything about same sex marriage either. As such, a judge has no constitutional basis to permit gay marriage.

    When you have a judge that makes it up as you go along, you get things like Kilo & Roe v Wade. Decisions that cause MASSIVE discord because these decisions were based not on constitutionality, but a judge's own preference.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 1:44 AM GMT
    Philadelphiabound said
    Hunter9 saidin response to philadelphia:
    why is passing a law a more valid way to bring about gay marriage than through the courts. the polygamy argument can still be brought up if gay marriage were legalized/delegalized throuigh the legislative process

    Because passing a law involves the legslative branch. A branch of govenment is elected by us. If we truly want acceptance of gay marriage, you need to change peoples minds. Passing a law is a much more powerful validation.
    The judicary is not elected, they are appointed. The judicary is therefore is not able to be held directly responsible for the decisions they make. The reason for this, is because a judge, specifically an appelete judge is supposed to interpt the laws based on either the state or US constitution. The constitution says nothing about marriage one way or the other. There is also not a single state constitution that says anything about same sex marriage either. As such, a judge has no constitutional basis to permit gay marriage.

    Do you think the courts were premature in granting civil rights to blacks and to spouses of different races who wanted to get married? Do you think we should have waited until a majority of Americans were comfortable?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 1:52 AM GMT


    The legal premise of marriage is there are two people involved. Just two people.

    There are already criminal laws against polygamy and incest. People who are wanting these two things legal are trying to jump on the gay bandwagon, but they can't, because
    there have been no specific criminal laws in place about two men or two women marrying. It never occurred to lawmakers that anyone would try... Now that will change, and so the battle is on; which way will it go? A law formally permitting it or denying it?

    An interesting abstract point- Jane and John are married and John gets his gender reassigned. Uh oh! Are they still married? heh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 2:07 AM GMT
    i think a lot of the laws against polygamy were based on discriminating against mormons. the mormon church doesn't condone polygamy right now and say that polygamy is not for this era.

    polygamy being legalized is really the only argument that they have.
    when they bring up incest and bestiality that just shows how crazy they are.
    obviously both incest and bestiality are public health issues.

    i think its extremely hypocritical to support same-sex marriage but not support polyamorous relationships. I'd say sure, legalize polygamy. Polygamy is still distinct from same-sex relationships though because polyamory is a choice, it's not something that is part of someone that they can't change.

    I think that the word marriage should be stripped of all religious connotations. Heterosexuals should have to get married by the government not the church. They should be able to get their marriage "religified" in a church or a mosque or by the raelians or whatever they want after they enter a contract with a state.

    stripping the religious meaning from marriage seems to be at the heart of the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 2:16 AM GMT
    1969er said
    Philadelphiabound said
    Hunter9 saidin response to philadelphia:
    why is passing a law a more valid way to bring about gay marriage than through the courts. the polygamy argument can still be brought up if gay marriage were legalized/delegalized throuigh the legislative process

    Because passing a law involves the legslative branch. A branch of govenment is elected by us. If we truly want acceptance of gay marriage, you need to change peoples minds. Passing a law is a much more powerful validation.
    The judicary is not elected, they are appointed. The judicary is therefore is not able to be held directly responsible for the decisions they make. The reason for this, is because a judge, specifically an appelete judge is supposed to interpt the laws based on either the state or US constitution. The constitution says nothing about marriage one way or the other. There is also not a single state constitution that says anything about same sex marriage either. As such, a judge has no constitutional basis to permit gay marriage.

    Do you think the courts were premature in granting civil rights to blacks and to spouses of different races who wanted to get married? Do you think we should have waited until a majority of Americans were comfortable?


    A very good arguement. However, remember that the courts didn't grant civil rights to blacks or permit inter-racial marriage out of the blue. Civil rights as we know it, came from a combination of the 13th & 14th amendments, the 21st (i'm not entirely sure about the number on this one, but it eliminates the Poll Tax), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The courts were used to strike down laws that were not constitutional based on the amendments and laws listed above.

    Gay marriage is a VERY different. The institution has never existed throughout all of human history. There was no expectation or previous history that marriage would include a same sex partner. As such, passing a law would be a validation of gay marriage, and it would be almost impossible to challenge constitutionally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 2:25 AM GMT
    blinktwice4y saidi think a lot of the laws against polygamy were based on discriminating against mormons. the mormon church doesn't condone polygamy right now and say that polygamy is not for this era.

    polygamy being legalized is really the only argument that they have.
    when they bring up incest and bestiality that just shows how crazy they are.
    obviously both incest and bestiality are public health issues.

    i think its extremely hypocritical to support same-sex marriage but not support polyamorous relationships. I'd say sure, legalize polygamy. Polygamy is still distinct from same-sex relationships though because polyamory is a choice, it's not something that is part of someone that they can't change.

    I think that the word marriage should be stripped of all religious connotations. Heterosexuals should have to get married by the government not the church. They should be able to get their marriage "religified" in a church or a mosque or by the raelians or whatever they want after they enter a contract with a state.

    stripping the religious meaning from marriage seems to be at the heart of the issue.


    I completely disagree. I would take the opposite approach. The government should only recognize "unions". The government can set the standards for these "unions" (male & female, same sex, etc).

    The problem also with incest and beastiality, is that while you are correct that it is a public health issue, some blithering moronic judge would disagree with it and let it become legal. That is why the judicary should not have anything to do with it. Pass a law, and set a standard. Do not let a judge just decree it like a king.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 2:26 AM GMT

    Gay marriage - a law is to be created making it criminal or legal.


    Polygamy - a law is already in place making it criminal and it would require de-criminalizing it.

    The above examples can't be lumped together.

    We really hate to do this but here -
    Members of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) - theologically, a cult of Mormonism (which itself is, theologically, a cult of Christianity) - use the latter approach to then obtain social security benefits, in a practice they refer to as “bleeding the beast.”

    The American taxpayer pays for much of this lifestyle. Recent records show in one year residents here collected more than $8-million from social services — including food stamps, welfare, health care — but the entire town paid less than $100,000 in income taxes.

    There needs to be a whole lot of sorting out things legally before polygamy can be realistically approached as being legit.

  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 26, 2008 2:52 AM GMT
    please dont ever bring bestiality into this discussion... our discussion involves relationships between consenting adults, not raping animals. every time i hear that come up in this argument, i just cringe.

    to pouncer: just because polygamy hasnt happened in those EU countries and US states does not mean that it still couldnt if they tried to latch onto the gay/freedom/equality argument

    and i agree with 1969er that we should not have to wait until the populace is "ok" with gay marriage before it becomes illegal. when it comes to equal rights, since when should have the majority have the power to decide the fate of the minority? that's exactly what our courts are for. Of course i want Prop 8 to fail but frankly, i think its ridiculous that we're leaving fundamental rights in the hands of the people

    to meninlove: if you say that the legal premise of marriage is between two people, then these religious quacks are just going to say that the legal premise of marriage is between a man and woman, and since it has been up until this point, you can't really refute that

    by the way, what kind of laws are there against polygamy? i mean only a man and a woman can get married at this moment in the US, what kind of laws are on the books against multiple partners?

    finally, i must say that i agree with the person who believes the gov't should not marry anyone and only should deal with unionizing any two people, allowing your church/temple/mosque to do whatever it likes in the marriage department. however, that still does not say anything over civil unions among polygamists/family members, etc
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 3:18 AM GMT


    Hey Hunter9,

    Put the word bigamy in google and enjoy the read! There's lots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 4:00 AM GMT
    When I've had this discussion with people I've found it most effective to point out that the slippery slope argument isn't, in fact, valid because we as society have no problems drawing arbitrary lines and saying this is acceptable and this isn't.

    We drive at 16, vote at 18, and can buy a beer at 21. No one seems to have a problem with those arbitrary lines.

    There is no precedent, legal or otherwise, that would indicate we are next bound to legalize polygamy or incest once we legalize gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 4:04 AM GMT
    Philadelphiabound said
    blinktwice4y saidi think a lot of the laws against polygamy were based on discriminating against mormons. the mormon church doesn't condone polygamy right now and say that polygamy is not for this era.

    polygamy being legalized is really the only argument that they have.
    when they bring up incest and bestiality that just shows how crazy they are.
    obviously both incest and bestiality are public health issues.

    i think its extremely hypocritical to support same-sex marriage but not support polyamorous relationships. I'd say sure, legalize polygamy. Polygamy is still distinct from same-sex relationships though because polyamory is a choice, it's not something that is part of someone that they can't change.

    I think that the word marriage should be stripped of all religious connotations. Heterosexuals should have to get married by the government not the church. They should be able to get their marriage "religified" in a church or a mosque or by the raelians or whatever they want after they enter a contract with a state.

    stripping the religious meaning from marriage seems to be at the heart of the issue.


    I completely disagree. I would take the opposite approach. The government should only recognize "unions". The government can set the standards for these "unions" (male & female, same sex, etc).

    The problem also with incest and beastiality, is that while you are correct that it is a public health issue, some blithering moronic judge would disagree with it and let it become legal. That is why the judicary should not have anything to do with it. Pass a law, and set a standard. Do not let a judge just decree it like a king.



    I think that we actually agree. i also believe that the government should only recognize unions whether they are same-sex or not. If a straight couple then wishes to have their marriage sanctified by a church they should then be able to.

    im not sure where we disagree.

    meninlove,

    it is unfair to bring up that you can't compare polygamy to same sex marriage. You say that these laws already exist?. Yeah, they exist because of discrimination against the mormon church which was rampant. Sure, people have taken advantage of polygamy for tax purposes. There are many monogamous marriages that do the same. Perhaps we fix the problems with it instead of completely out-ruling it.

    I just don't see how it's fair to say that same-sex marriage is ok but polyamorous relationships shouldnt be recognized. Polygamy isnt my fight and that should be left up to them to get that legal if they really want it to be. I'm not sure i see a huge push for that anyway.

    hunter,

    I agree that bestiality is disturbing and is ridiculous to enter the same conversation as same sex marriage but i have heard that argument many times and just not talking about it cause it makes you cringe seems strange. im sure there are people that don't want to talk about gay marriage because that makes them cringe. I was just making the point that whoever would compare marrying a non-human animal to marrying another of the same sex is extremely disturbed. sorry to make you cringe.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 4:08 AM GMT
    Philadelphiabound said

    Gay marriage is a VERY different. The institution has never existed throughout all of human history. There was no expectation or previous history that marriage would include a same sex partner.


    Not exactly true:

    51PX75XNF7L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_AA219
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 4:12 AM GMT


    Hmmmm, the polygamists are completely against gay marriage but we're to support them?
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Oct 26, 2008 4:16 AM GMT
    blinktwice: bestiality doesn't make me cringe because of the thought of some dude fucking a sheep, it makes me cringe how that is equated with two men in love