Gay Marriage & Polygamy
Proponents of gay marriage say that if two people love each other, they should not be denied marriage. After all, their marriage poses no harm to others and whose to say that marriage is between a man and a woman?Given that premise, I say why stop there. Why not allow polygamy as well, by that I mean not forced. If three or more people love each other, then whose to say that marriage is between two people and what harm do they pose to others? Group marriage be it 1 husband and 3 wives or 2 wives and 3 husbands are better b/c if one gets a divorce and fails to pay child support, the financial impact would be minimal since there are other parents to help out. In fact, the more spouses in the marriage, the better for this very reason. After all, whose to say that the polygamists are wrong? So the next time you run into someone that's for gay marriage, you should pose this same question to them.
posted by Mercy Now @ 11:03 PM
5 Comments:
Your points are very good against polygamy. However, your argument is for the protection of the relationship and that it's morally better to keep marriage to the least # of people, two people, to reduce the chances of abuse or breaking up. Stats show that the divorce rate is 50% and it will not be a surprise that this rate will be the same for gay marriages. This does not include abusive relationships in legal marriages today.
A marriage is a contract and just like contracts in business, it can be between two people or more than two people. The items are spelled out in the contract and if one breaks the contract, then the rules of the contract will be followed. People will separate for various reasons be it a contract between two or a group of people.
Contracts have been in existence for ages and seem to work fine. Polygamy has been in existence for ages as well, even before Utah such as in the Mid East. I'm not aware that gay marriages have been deemed legal by any nation in history until this century. Now, we ban polygamy but are thinking of legalizing gay marriage. I say hey, if you're going for gay marriage, why not polygamy as well as both are contracts that agreed parties enter into.
I'd suggest that you might do well to rephrase the question; if homosexual marriage is mandated by the "fact" that marriage is just about love, what sort of loves should not be consummated in marriage on the testimony of the lovers?
And why not?
The reason I suggest this is that your question pretty much assumes a "slippery slope" fallacy. To rescue your logic, you need to chain both concepts (homosexual and poly marriage) to the same principle that can be applied in both cases.
Thanks Bert, I was trying to get to the fact that apart from morals in the law, then anything goes. I'll have to repost this later.
Indeed, why not? Of course my personal preference is for govt to get out of the business of recognizing marriage all together.
Create a contractual shortcut that betows all of the rights and previledges of marriage, then step away. Then any two people can get "married" regardless of any outstanding factors.
Why can't two sisters have a relationship that looks and feels like marriage absent the sex? Or two friends? The benefits of such arrangements seem to be beneficial in a lot of circumstances that are not allowed today because of the religious baggage of the word marriage.
__________________
One argument against polygamy is that contracts are, inherently, between two parties. Once you have more than three parties in a "marriage" some scenarios become difficult to parse out such as parental rights, inheretance, etc. I think that case is overstated and isn't a signifigant barrier to polygamy as long as the participants are voluntarily participating.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home