Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
Homosexuality vs Polygamy
My dad posed this question to me. If homosexuality is legal, why isn't polygamy? Why can two men under their free will get married, but not, say, a guy and two girls who are also in love under their free will?
The literal morality of it is a grey area but one that could conceivably be acceptable, though it has issues to address there, like potential for abuse.
But the practicality of a legal union between more than two people is very complex indeed- we have tremendously tangled issues already with just two people re: custody, taxes and estates
If someone wants to consider themselves closely bonded under their culture, that is fine, but as far as this being an official system, regulated by the state, there is a good argument to keeping it to two people.
To sum up: The creed by which homosexual marriage is allowed is the base idea of two consenting adults whose union does not harm any other. There'd have to be quite a shift in that creed to include polygamy.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jul 8th, 2015 at 04:17 PM
Polygamy is part of why we should have just taken marriage out of the legal/tax equation from the start.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
I have no issue with polygamy just as I have no issue with homosexual marriage. What someone else chooses to do with their relationship possibilities is no concern of mine, so long as it involves fully consenting adult humans I say have at it.
As for the financial and estate issues, divide it equally among the parties. If a man/woman marries two men/women and eventually divorces one of them that one divorcee would be able to make claim on 33% of the estate and holdings barring a prenup or some other circumstances/conditions. If 4 parties in the union they'd have claim on 25% and so on.
Ush's post, which is a good summation of the complexities, handily leads into part of the reason I'm against government being involved in marriage at all. The other reason is that it literally legislates love; which, when you break it down to its basest element like that, seems stupid as **** to me.
But yeah, in a moral sense, I don't think polygamy is on any different standing than traditional marriage.
I don't have a problem with polygamy. I find it stupid because I can't see why anyone would want to romantically share their husband with another woman, sometimes several women.
But then we can't make it illegal because it is stupid, otherwise it would be illegal for people who have only known each other for a few weeks to get married.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
As I've stated earlier, I wonder if the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage opens the door up for polygamy.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Well the ruling was about being able to marry regardless of gender or sexual orientation. A polygamist is not a sexual orientation.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The issue with SCOTUS ruling is allowing consenting adults. I think if they changed the meaning of marriage between one man and one woman to 2 consenting adults, they can further change it to JUST consenting adults.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Eh, that might kill polygamy if legalized. Think about it. One guy with 2-3 women, a dream right? Okay, but now it is legal so what if they divorce? Dude has to pay 2-3 motherf*ckers alimony or some crap like that.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Exactly, if assets can be split two ways, they can be split three or more.
The possible big issue is children, eg In a three-way marriage where all three parents have legal custody either via blood or legal filings. But that could also be worked out by splitting care and custody among three instead of two, if a divorce should happen. But this will probably be the wrecking ball the anti-polygamy crowd will use, "think of the children".
Not that I think this will happen anytime soon, it took a long time to get marriage equality for two people. I don't see legal polygamy backdooring its way in anytime soon. I'm all for it though, if it's between consenting adults.
You need a groundswell of support to reach the sort of tipping point that civil rights did decades ago, and LGBT is now. Polygamy doesn't have nearly enough vocal adherents to make that kind of cultural imprint.
But of course there are variations of this logic, the paranoid, delusional reactionist argument that leads to...
People used to say that about Gay Marriage. And not that long ago either. Give it time. Enough money will start greasing Lawyers and Politicians palms to make it happen.
__________________ Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
KMC Community Forums
Jul 8th, 2015 04:04 PM
