What does the "gay" lobby plan to do about the fact that "gay marriage" currently discriminates against bisexuals?

[Oreoracle]

Can you elaborate? The way I see it is that the gay rights movement achieved traction by making the point that society’s definition of marriage contained a merely arbitrary restriction limiting it to a male and female…But that same argument and change in mentality can be applied to polygamy. **If marriage is no more than a public celebration and recognition of two people who love each other **and are committed to each other, then the “two” in that definition becomes as arbitrary as the “one man and one woman” used to be.

The bolded portion is the flaw in your argument. Marriage is not a celebration–it does not exist just to make people feel good. It has a definite function; people are offered financial and medical benefits to dedicate themselves to another person and possibly raise a family in a stable environment. The statistics show that this kind of commitment reduces human recklessness in general, which is why unmarried people have higher insurance.

While it is conceivable that multiple people might be able to collaborate and make good decisions about allocating funds and raising children, history shows that this turns families into hierarchical systems where the father becomes the god of the family. In any case, about 50% of marriages can’t handle 2 people collaborating, much less 3 or more.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I may as well be beating my head against a wall. I’m obviously not going to change your mind, so I’ll leave you to rave.

This is taking the slippery slope fallacy to an extreme. You’ll notice that the arguments against polygamy do not apply to gay marriage. They aren’t comparable, which is why the same arguments don’t work against both.
A slippery slope fallacy would be stating that homosexual marriage will result in human-animal marriages. Labeling something you disagree with as a “slippery slope fallacy” doesn’t make it one. Now if you wish to defend your claim, please explain to me how it is a slippery slope fallacy to envision the redefinition of marriage having a rather large impact on polygamy (a form of marriage that actually has a strong legal, historical, and social foundation both in this country and worldwide) becoming legal (again).

As for arguments against polygamy, I haven’t really seen any valid ones put forth on this thread or on other forum sites. My favorite claim is that it’s an oppressive arrangement. Apparently grown women have to be treated like children because they are mentally incapable of making decisions on their own and therefore have to be protected from themselves.

Actually, I will cite the Ancient Greeks in spite of your protests, but not for the reason you think. Relationships with children have also had a rich history, starting with the Greeks, proceeding with the Romans, and so on. Slavery has an even more consistent history. I don’t see how the histories of these institutions are relevant.
And the above is relevant to the discussion how?

I may as well be beating my head against a wall. I’m obviously not going to change your mind, so I’ll leave you to rave.
In other words you can’t actually defend your claim concerning polygamy being this, and therefore should not be allowed, and not invalidate the argument for the institution of marriage (hetero or homosexual) itself since the same claims can be made against 2 person marriages. Got it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, they don’t want to be forced to choose just one. The “gay” lobby includes bisexuals in their name of “LGBT”. But, at the moment, they arbitrarily say that so-called same-sex “marriage” is defined as either two lesbians or two homosexual men. This discriminates against the bisexuals among them. So, what does the “gay” lobby plan to do about this dilemma? Marriage should be as it was in the beginning - one man and one woman.

Excellent dilemma livingwordunity!

If the so-called “Marriage Equality” lobby has any integrity they will admit that they are accelerating the destruction of monogamy, the nuclear family and gender-balanced parenthood… all in the name of sexual hedonism and conflating sex with love. (eros/philia/agape).

I see you are suspended. I look forward to your return so we can continue this thread.
Please feel free to email me at my unimaginative gmail address if you would like to respond before then.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The bolded portion is the flaw in your argument. Marriage is not a celebration–it does not exist just to make people feel good. It has a definite function; people are offered financial and medical benefits to dedicate themselves to another person and possibly raise a family in a stable environment. The statistics show that this kind of commitment reduces human recklessness in general, which is why unmarried people have higher insurance.

While it is conceivable that multiple people might be able to collaborate and make good decisions about allocating funds and raising children, history shows that this turns families into hierarchical systems where the father becomes the god of the family. In any case, about 50% of marriages can’t handle 2 people collaborating, much less 3 or more.

History shows this? Mind citing the extensive studies (I assume you have a link to an English translation of these studies as I assume they are in Arabic)? You are using studies conducted in societies with a long history of polygamous marriages right (hence the reference to them being in Arabic)?

 

[manualman]

The bolded portion is the flaw in your argument. Marriage is not a celebration–it does not exist just to make people feel good. It has a definite function; people are offered financial and medical benefits to dedicate themselves to another person and possibly raise a family in a stable environment. The statistics show that this kind of commitment reduces human recklessness in general, which is why unmarried people have higher insurance.

While it is conceivable that multiple people might be able to collaborate and make good decisions about allocating funds and raising children, history shows that this turns families into hierarchical systems where the father becomes the god of the family. In any case, about 50% of marriages can’t handle 2 people collaborating, much less 3 or more.

I’d agree that it’s a terrible definition, but I’d assert that it’s the one most people actually adhere to these days. Catholics understand that marriage is a commitment between a man and woman to love one another more even than we love ourselves and that this nature of marital love is ordered towards the creation of children and enables their raising in a healthy environment. Gay marriage proponents don’t usually like getting as close to that as you did here. The financial and medical benefits were historically introduced to help defray the cost of children (who, unlike in agrarian societies, are a huge financial commitment).

The 50% divorce rate is somewhat misleading because so many divorces are among those getting multiple divorces. Somewhere near 75% of first marriages actually stick. I personally agree that polygamy is innately exploitive, but you watch and see: people will argue that that characteristic was one of a society with few social safety nets, not an innate function of polygamy. Time will tell.

After all, very similar arguments can be made about homosexual sexual activity. Sexually active gay people have always had sky high rates of drug abuse, depression, suicide, domestic violence, promiscuity, STDs, infidelity and other self destructive traits compared to the population as a whole. But that appalling track record has been neatly laid at the feet of ‘homophobic society’ and thus ignored. Time will tell if gay-friendly society will drastically reduce those rates. Data from long time gay friendly places like Amsterdam and New York City suggest very limited reductions. You’ll have to look it up yourself though, I’m terrible at keeping track of what I read.

 

[Havard]

Yeah, because journalism always reflects the morality and underlying beliefs of our culture. It’s not like they’re just using provocative titles to draw people into reading their drivel or anything.

Perhaps I’d consider that point more if I didn’t hear non-journalists saying the same thing where I live. By that I mean regular folks who don’t have an audience, and are just expressing their opinions.

Admittedly, I live in a very liberal area (San Francisco), but I know plenty of people who hold the opinion that all that matters is that the parties involved are consenting adults. Polygamy to them is “just another lifestyle”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Since the conversation has taken this turn, let me approach this from another angle…

Oreoracle,

Can you tell me the reasons why you think polygamous marriages should not be allowed?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I can easily tell you why I am pro-gay marriage but anti-polygamy. It all comes down to one issue: logistics.

Life is really, really hard. Marriage, in general, makes life easier and in many ways gives you a “safety net”, and the government recognizes this safety net and provides benefits and aid to marriages. This is a good thing and very necessary. It is neither necessary, nor feasible, for the government to support polygamy. Just imagine: Person A is married to Persons B, C, and X. Person X is married to A, but also to Y and Z. Z is married to A and C, but also P and Q…and on and on, and of course, kids and parenting fit in there somewhere. There is no way for the government, much less insurance companies and hospitals, to recognize that kind of family setup. It would essentially lead to a spider web of marriages and would be so open for exploitation and fraud.

Of course, I don’t think that polygamists should have to hide their lifestyle, and I certainly don’t think that they should be prosecuted for having a polygamous family. But it just isn’t something that can be institutionally supported. It would make more sense for people in polygamous marriages to just pair off legally, but live is a group.

The other issue is that sexual orientation is an innate trait. Being polygamous is a preference. There’s a big difference when it comes to discrimination. But really, the biggest issue is just feasibility.

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreoracle,

Can you tell me the reasons why you think polygamous marriages should not be allowed?

I concur with BlueEyedLady for the most part. I see nothing wrong with a group of people who want to have relations with each other. I just don’t see how the government could offer legal benefits in a way that doesn’t invite fraud or create a hierarchy where some members of the marriage would have more power than others.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I can easily tell you why I am pro-gay marriage but anti-polygamy. It all comes down to one issue: logistics.

Life is really, really hard. Marriage, in general, makes life easier and in many ways gives you a “safety net”, and the government recognizes this safety net and provides benefits and aid to marriages. This is a good thing and very necessary. It is neither necessary, nor feasible, for the government to support polygamy. Just imagine: Person A is married to Persons B, C, and X. Person X is married to A, but also to Y and Z. Z is married to A and C, but also P and Q…and on and on, and of course, kids and parenting fit in there somewhere. There is no way for the government, much less insurance companies and hospitals, to recognize that kind of family setup. It would essentially lead to a spider web of marriages and would be so open for exploitation and fraud.

Of course, I don’t think that polygamists should have to hide their lifestyle, and I certainly don’t think that they should be prosecuted for having a polygamous family. But it just isn’t something that can be institutionally supported. It would make more sense for people in polygamous marriages to just pair off legally, but live is a group.

The other issue is that sexual orientation is an innate trait. Being polygamous is a preference. There’s a big difference when it comes to discrimination. But really, the biggest issue is just feasibility.

-Governments and societies in countries in which polygamy is legal seem to have no issue dealing with the logistical issues.

-Current heterosexual marriages can’t be abused for exploitation and fraud? Off the top of my head I can think of 3- tax breaks, citizenship, and military benefits.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I concur with BlueEyedLady for the most part. I see nothing wrong with a group of people who want to have relations with each other. I just don’t see how the government could offer legal benefits in a way that doesn’t invite fraud or create a hierarchy where some members of the marriage would have more power than others.

I’m not sure how good these points are, in terms of their ability to withstand various logical and emotional arguments that polygamists might bring to the table. But I do think that you have cited a number of concerns that apply to polygamy and not same-sex marriage. So I think other posters on this thread should address your (and BlueEyedLady’s) reasons for opposing polygamy, and not simply assume that every argument for same-sex marriage is automatically an argument for polygamy, too.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I concur with BlueEyedLady for the most part. I see nothing wrong with a group of people who want to have relations with each other. I just don’t see how the government could offer legal benefits in a way that doesn’t invite fraud or create a hierarchy where some members of the marriage would have more power than others.

“A hierarchy where some members of the marriage would have more power than others.” You talking about polygamy or the history of heterosexual marriage for pretty much most of European and American history? What, you didn’t know that for much of European and American history the wife was legally and socially held to be the subordinate in the relationship and her husband held legal authority over her and “her” property?

 

[manualman]

Life is really, really hard. Marriage, in general, makes life easier and in many ways gives you a “safety net”, and the government recognizes this safety net and provides benefits and aid to marriages. This is a good thing and very necessary.

So why not grant the benefits of “marriage” to ANY two people in a really deep and committed friendship?

If two guys are NOT in a romantic relationship, but are single best friend roomates that rely on each other for support and friendship for life, would should they NOT be able to get mutual medical coverage, inheritance rights and hospital power of attorney when two guys who have a very similar relationship that happens to include, ahem, kissing ARE legally entitled to that? Is it the kissing that makes a relationship into a real safety net?

I’d assert that it’s not primarily the support spouses give each other that warrant government subsidy, but the fact that the relationship itself, by its very nature, tends towards making children who must be raised, fed, educated, etc. Government subsidizes these things because they are obviously financially crippling otherwise. It really makes no sense to extend those benefits to “best friends” with kissing attached when that relationship is by nature sterile.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So why not grant the benefits of “marriage” to ANY two people in a really deep and committed friendship?

If two guys are NOT in a romantic relationship, but are single best friend roomates that rely on each other for support and friendship for life, would should they NOT be able to get mutual medical coverage, inheritance rights and hospital power of attorney when two guys who have a very similar relationship that happens to include, ahem, kissing ARE legally entitled to that? Is it the kissing that makes a relationship into a real safety net?

I’d assert that it’s not primarily the support spouses give each other that warrant government subsidy, but the fact that the relationship itself, by its very nature, tends towards making children who must be raised, fed, educated, etc. Government subsidizes these things because they are obviously financially crippling otherwise. It really makes no sense to extend those benefits to “best friends” with kissing attached when that relationship is by nature sterile.

This brings up, in my mind, a realistic and amusing form of protest against gay marriage. Why not encourage Christian college students to “marry” each other, reap the benefits, then “divorce” after they find a genuine marriage to be a part of?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m not sure how good these points are, in terms of their ability to withstand various logical and emotional arguments that polygamists might bring to the table. But I do think that you have cited a number of concerns that apply to polygamy and not same-sex marriage. So I think other posters on this thread should address your (and BlueEyedLady’s) reasons for opposing polygamy, and not simply assume that every argument for same-sex marriage is automatically an argument for polygamy, too.

The only argument that I’ve seen so far on this thread worth actually considering is BlueEye’s comment concerning trait vs. behavior. However, her comment would need to be revised as it currently places bisexuals as either just engaging in a behavior or assumes their attraction to one sex or the other is mutually exclusive (sometimes they are just attracted to one sex, other times just attracted to the other). It would also need to establish that multiple partners (both in terms of intimate relationships and sexually) is just a behavior and not a trait of our biology.

 

[Publisher]

This brings up, in my mind, a realistic and amusing form of protest against gay marriage. Why not encourage Christian college students to “marry” each other, reap the benefits, then “divorce” after they find a genuine marriage to be a part of?

Yeah…I mean honesty, integrity and honor don’t mean anything…so why shouldn’t good “Christians” lie to the government, state, society, college etc and proclaim somenthing that is a lie…seems the problem isn’t same-sex marriage after-all.

 

[JimG]

This brings up, in my mind, a realistic and amusing form of protest against gay marriage. Why not encourage Christian college students to “marry” each other, reap the benefits, then “divorce” after they find a genuine marriage to be a part of?

Certainly, in the new definition of marriage, any two people could ‘marry’ just for the tax and insurance benefits. Marriage might become more popular than ever. And as far as I know, there is no legal requirement for spouses to live with one another.

As for polygamists, at least they could make the argument that in a polygamous marriage, actual marital relations are possible–as they are not in a same sex marriage–and that children might arise naturally from the union.

 

[manualman]

Yeah…I mean honesty, integrity and honor don’t mean anything…so why shouldn’t good “Christians” lie to the government, state, society, college etc and proclaim somenthing that is a lie…seems the problem isn’t same-sex marriage after-all.

The problem with things like this generally isn’t honest Christians. On the contrary, the problem with government boondoggles like this is that they end up being unintentional “honesty taxes” where everybody else games the system for benefit.

Oh phooey, you might say? Compare marriage and divorce rates in poor communities before the Great Society came along to those rates today and tell me it doesn’t happen.

It’s really ironic that tax and legal benefits were established in the first place to offset the heavy expense that occurs when marriage leads to its natural outcome: children. And yet today, childless gay couples gain actual marriage benefits (free health insurance for the self employed partner and zero probate inheritance) from marriage while actually married people with one major bread-earner and one primary kid care giver would be financially better off if they weren’t married (the care giver would bring in thousands in welfare, EIT credits and food stamps with very low declared income). Government usually makes a hash of these things!

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

according to the governments reasoning for legalizing same sex “marriage”, polygamists are still discriminated against. Where is it written in the constitution that only 2 people can love each other?? to say that, is to look down at polygamists, and say they are inferior.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Since marriages are now considered to be partnerships with two participants, perhaps polygamous unions could style themselves as shareholders. It works for corporations, and they’re people, right?