Mormons and Mohammedans and everyone else ought not to be forbidden polygamy if that is acceptable to those directly involved.  It is not the business of government.

This is exactly what I was talking about Ufreker.

The argument above highlights the fact what Ufreker and I discussed in a prior thread.  The premise that government has no role in marriage as a basis for arguing for gay marriage will only serve to hurt the gay marriage movement.  That is, unless the gay marriage movement unequivocally distances itself from its own supporters like those above.  Those supporters give credence to the slippery slope argument that I make regarding where the adoption of gay marriage will eventually take us.

If you want to scare all the other states other than Mass. about gay marriage go this route.

Those supporters give credence to the slippery slope argument that I make regarding where the adoption of gay marriage will eventually take us.

And never mind that the adoption of marriage started it all. Whatever.

I think it’s painfully obvious that, once you strip away the reliance on “scientific studies” (most of which have been conducted by allegedly “pro-family” outfits) and the “think of the children” hysterics, the primary basis for the conservatives’ anti-gay prejudice is entirely religious in nature.

Hmmmm, much like their opposition to evolution. 

Consigliere, I hate to say it, but when you are right you are right.  My argument that the government should have no say in marriage except as an enforcer of legal contracts is completely pointless.  Not wrong, because I don’t think I am wrong, but pointless, because Americans don’t really give a damn about liberty.  Americans want to be free to be like everyone else, beige people living beige lives.  Anyone who feels they should be able to do something the government disagrees with should be considered a criminal, de facto if not de jure.

Gay Marriage advocates probably should flee me and my reasoning as the devil flees holy water, since it is easier to pursuade governments to expand their power than it is to tell them to take a flying leap and mind their own damn business.  Nonetheless, I will continue to support gay marriage, since I consider it the right thing to do.  If expanding liberty requires legislation, then I shall bite the bullet and take it.

You are correct about the slippery slope as well; IIRC you propose that gay marriage will lead to people marrying sheep, children, rocks, etc.  Well, I don’t know about that slippery slope, but if I could go back in time and talk with little Jimmy Madison, Tommy Jefferson and the rest of the boys at the Constitutional Convention, I might have suggested the slippery slope of government not meddling in religion would one day lead to government being hijacked by religious zealots for their own evil purposes.

If liberty is the natural condition of mankind, provided as such by their Creator (if there is one, whatever it may be), then to deny liberty to others based on your belief of that Creator’s wishes is to insult and betray liberty, mankind, and the Creator.

I don’t see why the religious oppose gay marriage so much anyway.  If they hate gays they should encourage gay marriage so there will be legal records of those who are willing to flaunt their dispicable lifestyle and offend God with their sodomy.  Then, when the time comes, they will be easier to round up and ship off to “Exodus Camp”.  Or stone, whatever.  Honestly, if the homos expect to parade around like that instead of staying discreetly in the closet, they are only asking for it.

Anyway, Consi, since you seem to feel differently than I do, why don’t you take a moment and tell everyone here why government should be in charge of deciding what constitutes a legitimate marriage despite the (clear to me, anyway)words of the First Amendment.  I’m not asking for any great length of time, no quotations from weighty tomes, just your man-on-the-street response to the reporter’s question.

elwedriddsche,
I feel that I addressed your concerns when I mentioned government as the enforcer of legal contracts, but perhaps I was unclear and need to expand my statements.  If the state should regard marriage solely in terms of it being a legal contract, therefore the parties involved would need to be of legal age to enter into such a contract.  Thusly, coerced child marriages might be allowed by the officiating religious body, but would not be recognized as legitimate by the state due to the age of the party involved.  This would expose those who entered into such contracts as being parties to child endangerment, molestation, etc. including the officiating religious leader.  I recognize that this would be construed as denying religious freedom, but age-based restrictions on rights, I feel, are on a lot firmer Constitutional basis than “our religion disagrees with their beliefs and we outnumber them so we win.” Indeed, nothing would prevent the religions involved for agitating for a lowering of the age of consent laws, which in fact vary widely across the US.

I feel that I addressed your concerns when I mentioned government as the enforcer of legal contracts

You are technically correct and practically wrong, if that makes any sense.

Polygamy as practiced by some Mormons is not even a legal contract to the best of my knowledge. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s a felonious practice even ignoring the age of the “partners”. Yet the powers that be seem unable or unwilling to stomp it out.

The long and short of it is that polygamy (as in one male, many females) seems intrinsically rigged to the detriment of women. I dimly recall some threads here on SEB that discuss this in greater detail. Sadly, I can’t make the time to dig into this deeper.

The technical word for that form of polygamy is “polygyny” (is that the english word with the highest percentage of y’s in it?) as opposed to “polyandry”, which is one woman & many men.

Not only is polygyny degrading and detrimental to women, it’s outright stupid on the part of the man.  Who would, except in the most dire of emergencies (such as a severe shortage of men), deliberately remove peace from his own house like that?

While I strenuously disagree with pinheaded thumpers, who have no idea of the provenance of monogomy yet insist on its divine ordination, I think it is, as stated above, just plain dumb.

Sorry about the illegal use of commas.

I also have to wonder about the sanity of a man who would go in for polygany - isn’t one marriage hard enough?  But I am unconvinced it’s always worse for the woman.  It’s worse for whoever has the least power, and that is what contracts are for.  Whatever, I think so few people will go in for it that there is little chance of it having some allegedly terrible effect on society.

Like any other arrangement, it will ultimately depend on the people involved.  Let them decide, just make sure no one is being coerced.  Of course that means no under-age.

But I am unconvinced it’s always worse for the woman.

What is bad for women is a male-dominated society, combined with a misogynous religion.

it will ultimately depend on the people involved

Granted, but this statement doesn’t reflect the probability of good or bad outcomes.

In the case of polygany or polygamy, when debating gay marriage, does not work as an argument, because that type of marriage is a matter of choice, and is not part of the human condition, or species.  Homosexuality, in it’s truest form is not a choice.  So to not allow those that are homosexuals, to get married, is flat out discrimination.  Not allowing poly(fill in the blank) to get married is not discrimination, because it is a matter of religion or choice, and is not part of the human condition.

In the case of polygany or polygamy, when debating gay marriage, does not work as an argument, because that type of marriage is a matter of choice, and is not part of the human condition, or species.

Aren’t you confusing sexual orientation with a commitment between partners?

Consi never answered how he chose to be heterosexual. If homosexuality is a choice, then it follows that a heterosexual must be able to give an account why he or she rejected that choice.

Marriage is always a choice, except when it isn’t Arranged marriages and other overt or subtle coercion comes to mind…

One problem with the recent threads here on SEB is that Consi argues like a German - you can’t do something until and unless you have considered all conceivable and inconceivable ramifications to their fullest and can present solutions. Then and until then it’s safe to proceed.

This ignores that the traditional marriages, whatever that is and if it exists at all, have their own challenges. Married couples take dollars out of our wallets to staff divorce courts (and sometimes criminal courts) to redress these problems.

Let’s face it - the Abrahamic gods and secular bigots hate fags. Some admit it, others don’t.

Webs: Not allowing poly(fill in the blank) to get married is not discrimination, because it is a matter of religion or choice, and is not part of the human condition.

Well put.

My point is that even though poly-x is a choice, and even if being gay were entirely a matter of choice, it should still be their freedom to do so.  Sure, they’ll probably end up with rich lawyers and screwed up kids but how is that different from vanilla-hetero marriage?

LJ - well said about arguing every possible contingency.  Most people get married with only the faintest clue of what lies ahead.  I know that was the case with MrsDoF and I.

I never said polygamy in any of its variations was necessarily a great idea (though I think you are confusing your cultural norms with what is “the human condition”, unless you have a sample of feral humans and have determined that they prefer pair bonding as opposed to group marriage.  If you do have such a sample, you are probably guilty of a large number of laws.).  I simply believe it is not the business of government to tell those who voluntarily enter into such an agreement that they cannot do it, especially if it is based on religious belief which is protected under the Constitution.  Government does not protect us from entering into unequal contracts.

Have you considered the possibility that if, back in the 19th century, the US Supreme Court had said polygamy is not the gov’t business, that perhaps those hidden coercive Mormon polygamists who still exist might not engage in such practices?  By criminalizing it, it becomes an underground activity and a lot harder to detect, much less to modify to not include child brides and forced marriages.

I was just giving my own two cents.  My message wasn’t really point toward anybody, but since Consi will probably disagree with what I said, I guess it could be pointed to him.  I don’t have to form such a study to prove the poly-x is not a condition, because there is no such evidence linking the two things.  Scientists have not found any data that would support the idea of marrying multiple people.  Poly-x is a condition brought on by beliefs, whether they be social or religious.  While I do not like the government getting in my face with every issue either, I could care less if poly-x is outlawed, because there is only a choice for it.

I think you are confusing your cultural norms with what is “the human condition�?

I don’t believe I am confused about this. However, I have concerns about the examples that you initially brought into the debate. However, I’ll leave you and Consi to slug this out.

I could care less if poly-x is outlawed, because there is only a choice for it.

Dangerous thought, I’d rather the government not outlaw my choices, thank you.

I have a slightly different perspective on the poly debate, due to some old friend of mine. Let me tell you about it.

John & Barbara (not real names) got married when they were each in their late twenties. Barbara was bisexual and they thought about swinging, but didn’t feel comfortable with the whole sex with strangers thing. A few years later they met Julie. Julie was also bisexual, they all found each other attractive and interesting and eventually ended up in bed together. Then they all fell in love with each other. Julie moved in with them and they’ve all lived together for nearly twenty years now.

Happy ending, right?

Except for a little problem. Julie developed some rather serious health problems. And had no insurance. So they began looking into their options. Keep in mind, all though there are three of them, this is a committed group relationship. None of the three stray outside the group. If the option to have her join the marriage existed, they would have done it years ago. The three of them intend to spend their lives together.

Anyway, long story short, John actually divorced Barbara (legally only, they didn’t break up) and married Julie, to get her health coverage.

I’d happily support group marriages.

I read an interesting article about this just the other day.  Here is an excerpt:

Love Unlimited - The Polyamorists:
It is hard to estimate how many polyamorists exist - there is no box for them on any national census - but the number of online resources, articles and books on the topic has exploded since the early 1990s, when the term polyamory ("poly" for short) was coined in internet newsgroups. The Ethical Slut, a 1997 book by Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt that some call the “bible of poly”, has sold more than 50,000 copies and is about to go into its second edition. Recently the concept of multiple lovers has become the subject of public debate in the US, where conflicts over gay marriage have led some conservatives to claim that homosexual weddings will lead to marriages of more than two people: if you can have two mothers, they say, why not two mothers and a father?

For psychologists and evolutionary biologists, polyamory is a rare opportunity to see, out in the open, what happens when people stop suppressing their desire for multiple partners and embrace non-monogamy. Proponents say the poly brand of open but committed relationships may be a way around infidelity because it turns an age-old problem into a solution: polyamorists are released from the burdens of traditional marriage vows, yet they seem to keep their long-term relationships intact. What makes poly enticing is the possibility of reconciling long-term stability and romantic variety.

And why shouldn’t we consider it? When most people think of non-exclusive marriages, they think of polygamy, an ancient but still widespread practice that involves one person, usually male, acquiring multiple spouses in a harem-like arrangement. Or swinging, in which couples have casual flings on the side. Polyamory is different. It encompasses a dizzying variety of arrangements - anything from couples with long-term lovers on the side to larger groups with overlapping relationships. If anything characterises poly, says Elaine Cook, a psychiatrist who has a private practice in Marin county, California, it is a lack of rigid structure.

What evidence there is shows that poly couples stay together as long as monogamous ones - and, apparently, for good reasons. In a study published last December in the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality (vol 8), Cook analysed the relationships of seven couples who had been married for more than 10 years, and who had had additional partners for at least seven of those years. She found that most of the couples reported “love” or “connection” as important reasons for staying together. This contrasts with monogamous couples, Cook notes, who often list external factors such as religion or family as major reasons for remaining committed.

That is telling. Cook speculates that polyamorists perceive themselves as having more choices, and therefore they only stay in marriages and relationships that make them happy. “They have other relationships that they are perhaps equally excited about being in, but they want to maintain this [marriage] relationship because it continues to satisfy them,” she says.

For some, poly may be more realistic than monogamy. Having multiple partners frees people from the process of trying to find “the one” who is perfect for them in every way. In April, psychologist Rachel Robbins at the Mission Mental Health clinic in San Francisco conducted a survey of 250 polyamorous women. The number 1 reason they gave for being poly was “to experience different activities and explore different parts of themselves with different people”. Instead of asking one person to meet all their needs, polyamorists are content with several people who each meet a few.
- New Scientist, 07 July 2006

Sorry for the length of that quote - there was more.  In an anthropology class in college we were studying a society where polygyny was practiced and this one student’s reaction was basically; “Eeeww!  There’s NO WAY I could ever do that!  How can they do that?” And nothing the instructor could say would convince her that in fact, what seems normal depends a lot on what you grow up with. 

Amazing variety of the human animal, we exclude so much.

Anyway, long story short, John actually divorced Barbara (legally only, they didn’t break up) and married Julie, to get her health coverage.

Hold on KP- are you actually trying to say someone made a moral choice WITHOUT and OUTSIDE the guidance given by Christianity?

Whoa there big fella- gonna need time to get my head round this.

Damn- those athiests will be helping people for no reason what so ever next.

I’d happily support group marriages.

I’ve argued this plenty of times and no one can give me a satisfactory rebuttal: Clans

Let’s go back to the Clan structure.  You could literally take anyone into your clan.  You were responsible for them.  If they did wrong it reflected (legally) on you, and they recieved all the material benefits of the clan.

Basically, it would be an adoption/marrage refinement.  Take anyone you want as your “kin”, with all the good and bad that comes from it and they are treated for all intents and purposes as part of your family.  It is entirely up to you exactly WHICH part they fill.  What’s wrong with that?  Legally, gays could recieve all the benefits and religiously, the churches could simply refuse to marry two men or two women.  Separation of Church and State is maintained, religious freedom is maintained, and homosexuals get all the rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals get.  No one has to get their panties in a bunch about anything.

I’m somewhat of a polyamorist myself. I’m not opposed to polygamy in theory, although I don’t much care for the ultra-conservatism and misogyny of some of its practicers (i.e. the FLDS).

Sounds great, SB, no rebuttal here.  But “marriage” is a single-act legal shorthand for over a thousand elements and benefits of economic partnership in this country.  No contract that only encompassed the participants could encompass all those factors because they include externally-derived shared health care, tax benefits, etc. that currently only married people can get.  Fixing that problem is the source of a great deal of panty-bunching as the fundiecrats want to keep that club to heterosexual marriages only and excluding everyone else.

I’ve argued this plenty of times and no one can give me a satisfactory rebuttal: Clans

Let’s go back to the Clan structure.  You could literally take anyone into your clan.  You were responsible for them.  If they did wrong it reflected (legally) on you, and they recieved all the material benefits of the clan.

Basically, it would be an adoption/marrage refinement.  Take anyone you want as your “kin�?, with all the good and bad that comes from it and they are treated for all intents and purposes as part of your family.  It is entirely up to you exactly WHICH part they fill.  What’s wrong with that?

That’d be pretty cool - but I’m biased, being a tribal sorta gal and all

This proves the need for speeration of church and state, or better yet, the dissolution ofthe catholic church as a whole.  The removal of this church will give these foolish senators less sway over people who cringe at thge word God like every other Christian Conservative, idiots.  But yeah, seperate church and state, destroy catholicism, and there will be much rejoicing.

whiteblood:...or better yet, the dissolution ofthe catholic church as a whole.

I’m no fan of Catholicism, but I suspect that Protestant fundamentalism is far more pernicious in this country.