Arguments against polygamy in relation to gay marriage

[Charles041]

So marriage has been redefined for the first time in all human history to be whatever we want it to be.

So with this redefinition a group of consenting adults could be married, or two step brothers/sisters, could be anything now right?

When I pose this argument people are just asking me, “whats wrong with that?” They are all adults right?"

I like to make my case both with the bible and without the bible. How do I argue the social consequences of polygamy and gay polygamy without scripture?

 

[mjs2001]

So marriage has been redefined for the first time in all human history to be whatever we want it to be.

So with this redefinition a group of consenting adults could be married, or two step brothers/sisters, could be anything now right?

When I pose this argument people are just asking me, “whats wrong with that?” They are all adults right?"

I like to make my case both with the bible and without the bible. How do I argue the social consequences of polygamy and gay polygamy without scripture?

There is a ton of scientific literature which concludes that children are less likely to experience depression, drug addiction/alcoholism, and other psychological issues if they are raised in a home with both their mother and father. they are less likely to be imprisoned, commit suicide, drop out of school, and experience teen pregnancy. Marriage, as traditionally understood, regulates the rights and obligations between a mother and father, for the good of both of them and the child.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So marriage has been redefined for the first time in all human history to be whatever we want it to be.

So with this redefinition a group of consenting adults could be married, or two step brothers/sisters, could be anything now right?

Don’t make this a slippery slope argument.

It depends on the rationale for gay marriage. Just because the civil definition has broadened to include (or, depending on one’s view, has finally recognized) the ability of same sex couples to marry does not therefore mean any definition at all is is now possible. If the rationale is that gay persons can marry only because they are a pair of consenting adults, then yes, perhaps that leaves a future open to other definitions of marriage. But if the rationale is that gay persons can marry because they are two individuals who are able to love each other wholly and undivided, then multiple persons are excluded.

 

[Charles041]

It depends on the rationale for gay marriage. Just because the civil definition has broadened to include (or, depending on one’s view, has finally recognized) the ability of same sex couples to marry does not therefore mean any definition at all is is now possible.

Can you link me some evidence that consenting, unmarried, legal adults could not be married?

If I don’t have natural law
and I don’t have cannon law

Why can’t I marry my step brother or a group of close loving friends?

This is beside the point anyways. I was looking for facts about societal consequences of polygami.

Because this is our future and I want to raise awareness now

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/02/montana-polygamous-marriage-license-supreme-court/29612673/

 

[edwest2]

Don’t make this a slippery slope argument.

It depends on the rationale for gay marriage. Just because the civil definition has broadened to include (or, depending on one’s view, has finally recognized) the ability of same sex couples to marry does not therefore mean any definition at all is is now possible. If the rationale is that gay persons can marry only because they are a pair of consenting adults, then yes, perhaps that leaves a future open to other definitions of marriage. But if the rationale is that gay persons can marry because they are two individuals who are able to love each other wholly and undivided, then multiple persons are excluded.

Of course it does.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

Can you link me some evidence that consenting, unmarried, legal adults could not be married?

If I don’t have natural law
and I don’t have cannon law

Why can’t I marry my step brother or a group of close loving friends?

This is beside the point anyways. I was looking for facts about societal consequences of polygami.

Because this is our future and I want to raise awareness now

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/02/montana-polygamous-marriage-license-supreme-court/29612673/

Even IF it is our future, what have you to fear?

People on CAF are so fond of quoting statistics that show how small the percent of the population is gay. Well, those who want polygamous marriage are far, far fewer than that.

You, your marriage, and your family will not be harmed if this is the case. I believe polygamy is wrong; but I simply do not think we have something to fear if the few who want these relationships choose to have them – and are even legally protected.

 

[Charles041]

Not all of us are willing to stand quietly and watch out family, friends, and country march into hell.

Jesus challenged the pharisees. He didn’t whisper to the apostles, " don’t worry about it, we’re going to heaven anyways."

 

[catholic1seeks]

Not all of us are willing to stand quietly and watch out family, friends, and country march into hell.

Jesus challenged the pharisees. He didn’t whisper to the apostles, " don’t worry about it, we’re going to heaven anyways."

I don’t disagree with you here.

 

[meltzerboy]

Don’t make this a slippery slope argument.

It depends on the rationale for gay marriage. Just because the civil definition has broadened to include (or, depending on one’s view, has finally recognized) the ability of same sex couples to marry does not therefore mean any definition at all is is now possible. If the rationale is that gay persons can marry only because they are a pair of consenting adults, then yes, perhaps that leaves a future open to other definitions of marriage. But if the rationale is that gay persons can marry because they are two individuals who are able to love each other wholly and undivided, then multiple persons are excluded.

I like the way you think! Of course, it resembles my own way of thinking. You make a subtle distinction very well.

 

[Charles041]

I like the way you think! Of course, it resembles my own way of thinking. You make a subtle distinction very well.

The supreme court to my knowledge hasn’t defined “rationale,” of a marriage so the distinction is simply conjecture.

 

[edwest2]

Not all of us are willing to stand quietly and watch out family, friends, and country march into hell.

Jesus challenged the pharisees. He didn’t whisper to the apostles, " don’t worry about it, we’re going to heaven anyways."

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ed

 

[cjforJesus]

Don’t make this a slippery slope argument.

It depends on the rationale for gay marriage. Just because the civil definition has broadened to include (or, depending on one’s view, has finally recognized) the ability of same sex couples to marry does not therefore mean any definition at all is is now possible. If the rationale is that gay persons can marry only because they are a pair of consenting adults, then yes, perhaps that leaves a future open to other definitions of marriage. But if the rationale is that gay persons can marry because they are two individuals who are able to love each other wholly and undivided, then multiple persons are excluded.

The courts did not rationalize their decision based on any definition of love.It was simply a matter of equality." People should be able to marry those they chose in the pursuit of happiness" was their rationale. This does open the door wide for any 2 consenting adults or multiple adults.

 

[atjar]

The courts did not rationalize their decision based on any definition of love.It was simply a matter of equality." People should be able to marry those they chose in the pursuit of happiness" was their rationale. This does open the door wide for any 2 consenting adults or multiple adults.

IT does no such thing. Polygamy is against the law; laws have been passed to say a man can’t have 16 wives. There’s never been a law that said two men can’t marry; it just wasn’t allowed by the previous definition of marriage. The courts didn’t invalidate any law that said " “You two men can’t get married or you will go to the pokey.” Instead, the courts said the institution of marriage also should include two people of same sex.

Gay marriage supporters don’t proselytize for polygamy, bestiality or any other such aberration, as didn’t supporters of mixed marriages. It’s a slippery slope that doesn’t exist.

 

[cjforJesus]

IT does no such thing. Polygamy is against the law; laws have been passed to say a man can’t have 16 wives. There’s never been a law that said two men can’t marry; it just wasn’t allowed by the previous definition of marriage. The courts didn’t invalidate any law that said " “You two men can’t get married or you will go to the pokey.” Instead, the courts said the institution of marriage also should include two people of same sex.

Gay marriage supporters don’t proselytize for polygamy, bestiality or any other such aberration, as didn’t supporters of mixed marriages. It’s a slippery slope that doesn’t exist.

I disagree.If the courts redefined who can marry there is no legal reason now that multiple people cannot be united.Sodomy used to be illegal and now it is not so laws can be changed. There are probably cases already being filed to challenge the laws limiting the number of partners one can legally claim. There is no legal reason to limit how many people one can love and seek to legally unite to and provide benefits to.

 

[edwest2]

IT does no such thing. Polygamy is against the law; laws have been passed to say a man can’t have 16 wives. There’s never been a law that said two men can’t marry; it just wasn’t allowed by the previous definition of marriage. The courts didn’t invalidate any law that said " “You two men can’t get married or you will go to the pokey.” Instead, the courts said the institution of marriage also should include two people of same sex.

Gay marriage supporters don’t proselytize for polygamy, bestiality or any other such aberration, as didn’t supporters of mixed marriages. It’s a slippery slope that doesn’t exist.

I disagree.

Ed

 

[cjforJesus]

IT does no such thing. Polygamy is against the law; laws have been passed to say a man can’t have 16 wives. There’s never been a law that said two men can’t marry; it just wasn’t allowed by the previous definition of marriage. The courts didn’t invalidate any law that said " “You two men can’t get married or you will go to the pokey.” Instead, the courts said the institution of marriage also should include two people of same sex.

Gay marriage supporters don’t proselytize for polygamy, bestiality or any other such aberration, as didn’t supporters of mixed marriages. It’s a slippery slope that doesn’t exist.

I am not saying I agree with this but lets say a self identified bisexual man is romantically involved with both a male and female partner and wants to marry both. Why should he legally be forced to chose? Why should the state be involved at all? The state should not make any laws restricting within reason the right to the pursuit of happiness. All three are consenting adults. I am not saying I agree with any of this but when you throw religion and God out the window this is what you are left with.a very slippery slope.

 

[atjar]

I disagree.If the courts redefined who can marry there is no legal reason now that multiple people cannot be united.Sodomy used to be illegal and now it is not so laws can be changed. There are probably cases already being filed to challenge the laws limiting the number of partners one can legally claim. There is no legal reason to limit how many people one can love and seek to legally unite to and provide benefits to.

Then they would have to be repealing laws that say polygamy is illegal. The courts never repealed a law that said two men can’t marry and if they try it, off to jail they go.

You do recognize these are some of the same arguments (the slippery slope of polygamy being the next step after allowing gay marriage) made by opponents of interracial marriages when that restriction was lifted?

 

[cjforJesus]

Then they would have to be repealing laws that say polygamy is illegal. The courts never repealed a law that said two men can’t marry and if they try it, off to jail they go.

You do recognize these are some of the same arguments (the slippery slope of polygamy being the next step after allowing gay marriage) made by opponents of interracial marriages when that restriction was lifted?

legally now there is no reason why a bisexual man cannot marry a man and woman in the pursuit of happiness.

The state redefined what marriage is. It seems to say that marriage should not be restricted to adult males marrying females. A homosexual is attracted to those of its own sex and now in the pursuit of happiness and equality can marry with all the legal benefits. Bisexuals are attracted to both and legally should not be forced to chose one or the other in marriage.

 

[atjar]

legally now there is no reason why a bisexual man cannot marry a man and woman in the pursuit of happiness.

Because there are laws against polygamy; those laws would have to be repealed. No such law was appealed when gays were included in the right to marry.

 

[cjforJesus]

Because there are laws against polygamy; those laws would have to be repealed. No such law was appealed when gays were included in the right to marry.

The polygamy laws would be considered discriminating against bisexuals.
Yes laws were repealed in regards to same sex marriage. First the laws against sodomy were struck down to pave the way.