Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Since there's so much religion talk around here, does anybody know the position of Cthulhu Cult on same-sex marriage?

Iä Dagon! Iä Hydra!
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[Der Teutoniker]

Some of you probably in fact hold this position, so this isn't a problem for you, but I should make it clear that accepting homosexual marriage means accepting polygamy, so that's next if you pass it.

I support same-sex marriage. This does not mean that I need support polygamy (though I support that as well, seperately, and on it's own merits.)

There is an excellent argument out there defining this argument well.

There are three people, Alice, Bob, and Cindy. Bob can marry either Cindy, or Alice. Cindy can marry Bob, but not Alice. Similarly Alice can marry Bob, but not Cindy. Legalizing same-sex marriage would give Alice, and Cindy equal rights to Bob, in their ability to marry one another. This in no way means that polygamy should be allowed "just because".

Note, this is not originally my argument, but that of another poster on NSG. Mine is crude, and based off of poor memory, but I believe the point is across sufficiently.

[BizarroCanada]

Some of you probably in fact hold this position, so this isn't a problem for you, but I should make it clear that accepting homosexual marriage means accepting polygamy, so that's next if you pass it.

I support same-sex marriage. This does not mean that I need support polygamy (though I support that as well, seperately, and on it's own merits.)

There is an excellent argument out there defining this argument well.

There are three people, Alice, Bob, and Cindy. Bob can marry either Cindy, or Alice. Cindy can marry Bob, but not Alice. Similarly Alice can marry Bob, but not Cindy. Legalizing same-sex marriage would give Alice, and Cindy equal rights to Bob, in their ability to marry one another. This in no way means that polygamy should be allowed "just because".

Note, this is not originally my argument, but that of another poster on NSG. Mine is crude, and based off of poor memory, but I believe the point is across sufficiently.

Once again, I'm asking "why not?". Sorry, I know it's not your argument and you've simplified, but the point as it stands is not a strong one. Too problems: first, by that logic, heterosexual marriage doesn't discriminate either. Alice, Bob, and Cindy are all free to marry a person of the opposite sex. Therefore they all have the same rights.

Also, the question remains unanswered of why the State should prohibit polygamy if it already accepts that the definition of marriage can be changed.

I don't expect a response from you, since, of course, you're good with polygamy and that wasn't your argument. However, the point you cite doesn't address my problem by a long shot.

[Cirona]

Some of you probably in fact hold this position, so this isn't a problem for you, but I should make it clear that accepting homosexual marriage means accepting polygamy, so that's next if you pass it.

If you don't understand why, proponents of gay marriage should ask themselves the following question: on what basis do you restrict the definition of marriage to two people?

Real love is between two people? Nope, you're just afraid of "different" kinds of love, you poly-phobic jerk.

Explotation of women? Doesn't count against legalizing polygamy, forced marriages and exploitation is already prohibited by other laws--as long as it was clear that there was no exploitation going down, you can't object. Keep in mind that there's plenty of exploitation in other kinds of marriage.

Wanting to be with a lot of people is an immoral desire, and the State should not condone it by legitimizing the relationships? Well, we said the same thing about homosexuality. Furthermore, how DARE you; I was born polysexual, it wasn't my choice, so back off, Fascists.

So yeah, once homosexual marriage is accepted, expect the definition to get changed again and again, until it basically becomes a meaningless contract between a bunch of (human?) people. And no, this is not the straw man slippery slope: "You let EVIL seep into the law, you cannot turn the tide back now". Rather, the argument is this: you HAVE to keep expanding the definition because to stop at homosexuality is arbitrary from a logical standpoint.

The list goes on. Again, there's some out there for whom this isn't a problem(i.e. if you're okay with polygamy), but the "prevailing wisdom" nowadays(in the West, at least) is generally gay marriage: good, polygamy: bad, which suggests to me that there are way too many people getting their opinions from TV and too few actually thinking it through. I disagree with polygamy supporters, but at least they are consistent.

I never ever found anything wrong with polygamy. Monogamy is for selfish beings with jealousy.

I mean, if you love two people, why can't you have them both?
If monogamy was in place, it's just going to hurt all of the three parties.
Also, even if monogamy was in place, the mister is just going to have a mistress. Its just the borderline difference between it being legal and the ability to do it.

Of course, polygamy should be legal for both sexes.

And, I would like to emphasise that marriage should be legal for any human beings, regardless of race, colour, ethnicity, size, appearance, orientation and sex.

[Muravyets]

After all separate but equal has worked so well in the past and the definition of marriage has never changed.

I had this same thought, when I heard that Obama supported not same-sex marriage, but allowing same-sex couples to get Civil Unions (which would act as marriages for all intents and purposes) I wondered if the Civil Rights Movement really imparted it's message well enough.

I mean, I have never heard of a black person propogate a 'seperate but equal' ideology.

I have. Being from a group that was/is the target of bigotry does not make every member of that group immune to being bigoted.

[Der Teutoniker]

Once again, I'm asking "why not?". Sorry, I know it's not your argument and you've simplified, but the point as it stands is not a strong one. Too problems: first, by that logic, heterosexual marriage doesn't discriminate either. Alice, Bob, and Cindy are all free to marry a person of the opposite sex. Therefore they all have the same rights.

Also, the question remains unanswered of why the State should prohibit polygamy if it already accepts that the definition of marriage can be changed.

I don't expect a response from you, since, of course, you're good with polygamy and that wasn't your argument. However, the point you cite doesn't address my problem by a long shot.

But Alice is not equal to Bob, in his right to marry Cindy. Something he can do that she cannot.

The argument of whether or not the definition of marriage can be changed, to me, is irrelevant. I believe that the original poster of argument had some good reason why polygamy is not necessitated, however, I do not disagree with polygamy, so it seems I did not bother to remember that part specifically.

[BizarroCanada]

Hmm, so it might be that the people I tend to discuss this issue with are not the same kind of people who would bother with a debate forum, so that point I made is perhaps going to fall on deaf ears.

I'll ask again: anyone who actually supports homosexual marriage and rejects polygamy got a response to all that I said? While it's fun for polygamy supporter's to play devil's advocate in order to keep my entertained, I'm sure there's at least a few on this forum who actually hold the position.

[BizarroCanada]

But Alice is not equal to Bob, in his right to marry Cindy. Something he can do that she cannot.

Bob can't marry, say, "Mike", but Alice can. No one has more rights than another in this situation. Everyone, regardless of who they are, is permitted to marry the opposite sex.

[Muravyets]

The issues with polygamy that make it different from same sex monogamy are:

1. All the issues of property ownership, child custody, proxy authority, etc., that are attached to legal marriage. These are much more complicated when there are more than two people involved in the marriage contract. This does not mean polygamy cannot be legalized. It only means that it will not automatically follow on the heels of same sex monogamy because the marriage codes would have to be altered extensively, whereas they don't for same sex marriage. So although permitting same sex marriage may lead to reexamining the definition of marriage more broadly, to include polygamy, it is not the slippery slope some people think it will be (whether they're for it or against it).

2. In the west, polygamy is not a fair and equitable marriage agreement. It is entirely corrupted by abuse and discrimination against women and girls. In some other cultures it is much more fair, and in yet other cultures it is even more abusive. But in a country like the US, polygamy involves women and girls being abused and/or stripped of their rights. So until polygamy changes, I don't see it being legalized any time soon.

[Vetalia]

Under the law, of course. Anyone willing to marry a homosexual couple can do so and they should be treated as equal in all aspects. However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

[Muravyets]

Under the law, of course. Anyone willing to marry a homosexual couple can do so and they should be treated as equal in all aspects. However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

In the United States, no one has ever proposed that religious organizations be forced to do anything, nor has any law recognizing same sex marriage ever forced churches to marry people against their beliefs. In fact, all the US laws that recognize gay marriage specifically uphold the right of religions to be exempt from having to conduct marriages against their faith. Why? A little thing called the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

[Soheran]

Explotation of women? Doesn't count against legalizing polygamy, forced marriages and exploitation is already prohibited by other laws--as long as it was clear that there was no exploitation going down, you can't object. Keep in mind that there's plenty of exploitation in other kinds of marriage.

I agree that this is probably correct (and I think that polygamy should be legal), but it is not necessarily clear. The fact that something is independently criminal does not mean that you cannot prohibit something that often leads to it (though sometimes it might mean that there are better-tailored ways to solve the problem).

Rather, the argument is this: you HAVE to keep expanding the definition because to stop at homosexuality is arbitrary from a logical standpoint.

Maybe. But this doesn't help you at all, because it is also the case that to stop at heterosexuality is arbitrary from a logical standpoint.

As Nate Silver once put it, "Heterosexual marriage has triggered a slippery slope leading to gay marriage."

[Muravyets]

But Alice is not equal to Bob, in his right to marry Cindy. Something he can do that she cannot.

Bob can't marry, say, "Mike", but Alice can. No one has more rights than another in this situation. Everyone, regardless of who they are, is permitted to marry the opposite sex.

In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court declared the right to marry the consenting adult of one's choice to be a basic human right. Not the person of opposite sex of one's choice. Denying a man the right to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman, is a violation of their basic human rights.

[Vetalia]

In the United States, no one has ever proposed that religious organizations be forced to do anything, nor has any law recognizing same sex marriage ever forced churches to marry people against their beliefs. In fact, all the US laws that recognize gay marriage specifically uphold the right of religions to be exempt from having to conduct marriages against their faith. Why? A little thing called the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That's why it's a nonissue. Equal treatment under the law means equal treatment under the law.

[Muravyets]

In the United States, no one has ever proposed that religious organizations be forced to do anything, nor has any law recognizing same sex marriage ever forced churches to marry people against their beliefs. In fact, all the US laws that recognize gay marriage specifically uphold the right of religions to be exempt from having to conduct marriages against their faith. Why? A little thing called the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That's why it's a nonissue. Equal treatment under the law means equal treatment under the law.

What's a non-issue? Church objections? If that's what you mean, I agree.

[Soheran]

1. All the issues of property ownership, child custody, proxy authority, etc., that are attached to legal marriage. These are much more complicated when there are more than two people involved in the marriage contract. This does not mean polygamy cannot be legalized. It only means that it will not automatically follow on the heels of same sex monogamy because the marriage codes would have to be altered extensively, whereas they don't for same sex marriage. So although permitting same sex marriage may lead to reexamining the definition of marriage more broadly, to include polygamy, it is not the slippery slope some people think it will be (whether they're for it or against it).

This is also true, and it means that an equal protection argument for polygamy is unlikely to succeed even aside from the cultural taboo against it.

[BizarroCanada]

The issues with polygamy that make it different from same sex monogamy are:

1. All the issues of property ownership, child custody, proxy authority, etc., that are attached to legal marriage. These are much more complicated when there are more than two people involved in the marriage contract. This does not mean polygamy cannot be legalized. It only means that it will not automatically follow on the heels of same sex monogamy because the marriage codes would have to be altered extensively, whereas they don't for same sex marriage. So although permitting same sex marriage may lead to reexamining the definition of marriage more broadly, to include polygamy, it is not the slippery slope some people think it will be (whether they're for it or against it).

2. In the west, polygamy is not a fair and equitable marriage agreement. It is entirely corrupted by abuse and discrimination against women and girls. In some other cultures it is much more fair, and in yet other cultures it is even more abusive. But in a country like the US, polygamy involves women and girls being abused and/or stripped of their rights. So until polygamy changes, I don't see it being legalized any time soon.

In order:
#1: As you say, this is just a practical difficulty, not a reason to say "No" to polygamists. So yes, we will indeed keep slipping down this slope, as there's no way that same sex marriage would be refused on merely practical grounds. It's not a reason to deny people "rights".

#2: If you read my original post, I addressed this: Husbands exploit their wives in normal marriages too, and exploitation of women still happens outside marriage as well. Polygamy does not NECESSARILY result in the stripping of rights: there are(or should be) separate laws that prohibit the exploitation that would supposedly occur in polygamous marriages. To say that no one can have polygamy because a lot of polygamists are abusive doesn't cut it.

[Der Teutoniker]

However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

I should hope that there is no disagreement on this point.

[Gen Italia]

Of course they should. The only ones who object are closeted child molesters.

[BizarroCanada]

Explotation of women? Doesn't count against legalizing polygamy, forced marriages and exploitation is already prohibited by other laws--as long as it was clear that there was no exploitation going down, you can't object. Keep in mind that there's plenty of exploitation in other kinds of marriage.

I agree that this is probably correct (and I think that polygamy should be legal), but it is not necessarily clear. The fact that something is independently criminal does not mean that you cannot prohibit something that often leads to it (though sometimes it might mean that there are better-tailored ways to solve the problem).

Rather, the argument is this: you HAVE to keep expanding the definition because to stop at homosexuality is arbitrary from a logical standpoint.

Maybe. But this doesn't help you at all, because it is also the case that to stop at heterosexuality is arbitrary from a logical standpoint.

As Nate Silver once put it, "Heterosexual marriage has triggered a slippery slope leading to gay marriage."

I should explain: I, myself, am against homosexual marriage, but that wasn't the argument I was making. All I was saying is this: It is logically inconsistent to accept gay marriage and oppose polygamy. As you say, this argument doesn't actually support the traditional marriage argument by itself; it might very well be that the right thing to do is just legalize anything you want to call a "marriage". The only point that I was making is that this supposedly simple issue has logical consequences that proponents of gay marriage rarely consider.

[Techno-Soviet]

Excuse me sir, here is your Internet.

[Muravyets]

The issues with polygamy that make it different from same sex monogamy are:

1. All the issues of property ownership, child custody, proxy authority, etc., that are attached to legal marriage. These are much more complicated when there are more than two people involved in the marriage contract. This does not mean polygamy cannot be legalized. It only means that it will not automatically follow on the heels of same sex monogamy because the marriage codes would have to be altered extensively, whereas they don't for same sex marriage. So although permitting same sex marriage may lead to reexamining the definition of marriage more broadly, to include polygamy, it is not the slippery slope some people think it will be (whether they're for it or against it).

2. In the west, polygamy is not a fair and equitable marriage agreement. It is entirely corrupted by abuse and discrimination against women and girls. In some other cultures it is much more fair, and in yet other cultures it is even more abusive. But in a country like the US, polygamy involves women and girls being abused and/or stripped of their rights. So until polygamy changes, I don't see it being legalized any time soon.

In order:
#1: As you say, this is just a practical difficulty, not a reason to say "No" to polygamists. So yes, we will indeed keep slipping down this slope, as there's no way that same sex marriage would be refused on merely practical grounds. It's not a reason to deny people "rights".

I didn't say it was reason to say no. I said it showed that your argument that allowing gay marriage would require allowing polygamy for the same reasons is faulty because there are other reasons why polygamy is a problem. Resolving the marriage rights issue by itself would not clear away all objections to polygamy. To address polygamy would require an entirely different approach than to address same sex monogamy.

#2: If you read my original post, I addressed this: Husbands exploit their wives in normal marriages too, and exploitation of women still happens outside marriage as well. Polygamy does not NECESSARILY result in the stripping of rights: there are(or should be) separate laws that prohibit the exploitation that would supposedly occur in polygamous marriages. To say that no one can have polygamy because a lot of polygamists are abusive doesn't cut it.

Good thing I didn't say that, then. While you're complaining about people not reading your posts, why don't you take a moment to read theirs?

Or even better, why don't you take a moment to get back on the topic of the thread? It never fails but when anyone brings up gay marriage, some polygamy enthusiast is going to hijack the thread. Not be merely content to raise a general issue of defining marriage in more flexible ways, but put up post after post turning the entire discussion into a referendum on their pet issue.

[Gen Italia]

However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

I should hope that there is no disagreement on this point.

I completely disagree. If religious groups wish to receive governent funding or tax breaks of any kind they should have to follow all of the laws of the nation/state. That includes marrying homosexual couples where legal. It should also mean allowing women as clergy.

If they are against it, revolk their tax free and charitable status. Why should tax concessions go to groups that do not obey national laws? I'm sure we can all agree on this.

[Vetalia]

What's a non-issue? Church objections? If that's what you mean, I agree.

Basically.

[BizarroCanada]

However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

I should hope that there is no disagreement on this point.

I don't remember the specific case(perhaps someone else does), but a few years ago, in Canada, there was an issue where a lesbian couple wanted to hold their wedding reception at a Knights of Columbus place. Knights of Columbus refused(it's a Catholic organization), and the lesbian couple took them to court, and while the Knights weren't forced to hold the reception, they did have to pay out some money because of--if I recall correctly these words were actually used--"hurt feelings".

This is a side issue--Canadian law seems to think that you have a right not to be offended(if you're interested, look into the controversy around the Human Rights Commission), but I thought that might be interesting. It's surprising, but some(not me, nor, I hope, anyone on the forum) actually would disagree with that statement, believe it or not.