Gay Marriage, Polygamy and the "slippery slope"

[USArmyParatrooper]

We've all heard the argument made, "It will lead to polygamy"

We all know this argument is absurd as there are several countries who have legalized gay marriage across the board, and none that I am aware of have adopted polygamy as a result. On the opposite end there are a number of Islamic theocracies of which polygamy is legal but gay marriage is illegal. And obviously those countries will never adopt gay marriage in our lifetime.

This thread isn't intended to discuss the "slippery slope" argument as I would obviously be preaching to the choir.

But arguing against the 'slippery slope' on a chess forum I visit, it got me to thinking. Why not polygamy? The idea is something I'm not comfortable with, but I don't feel that reason alone is enough to ban the practice. There are Americans who could argue banning polygamy infringes on their freedom of religion.

But the only examples I've seen involved specials on underground cults who practiced polygamy and the women were essentially property, often being forced into marriage at 12 or 13.

Honestly, I think the government should just get out of the marriage business all together. Two adults who are the same or opposite gender can enter into a "civil union" by the state and leave it to churches to declare relationships a "marriage." If you want the legal benefits (or drawbacks depending on your perspective) get your relationship sanctioned by the state as a civil union. If you want are more colorful ceremony to represent your love and devotion, leave it to churches or other private entities. There are rare churches who will marry gays.

To prevent tax complications only allow two people to enter state sanctioned civil unions.

Your thoughts?

[unpossibles]

1. to be honest if it involves consenting adults I have no problem with polyamorous marriage

this slippery slope argument is ridiculous. By the same logic, life leads to death, therefore should be illegal.

[petronius]

5. That's my feeling too - the only argument I can come up with is that it

might require a potentially massive reworking of tax codes and other relevant law, so perhaps the state would have a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to two adults (although perhaps it would be an easy change, I don't know). Beyond that, I see no argument against 3-or-more marriages, although I suspect there are relatively few people who realistically want one...

[Wounded Bear]

26. Not necessarily....

Just have everyone file the same, as individuals....no marriage effect at all, except for divvying up the dependents.

One tax rate for all. :shrug:

[PDJane]

2. The mistake wasn't getting the government into the

marriage business; the mistake was letting religion take over the marriage business. The benefits of marriage are given by the state, not religion....tax breaks, inheritance rights, etc.

Ergo, let the state decide what constitutes a marriage, give the rights to married people, and let the church ceremony be a personal and private ceremony. The church may sanction a civil union as a sacrament, but marriage and divorce ought to be the business of the state.

[Warpy]

4. I have always thought the civil union should take place

when the two people sign the license at the clerk of court's office. A wedding ceremony can and should be superfluous, perhaps desirable but not necessary to activate the body of law governing raising a life partner to the status of first degree relative.

[rocktivity]

16. DING DING DING! Warpy, you're our grand prize winner!

I have always thought the civil union should take place when the two people sign the license at the clerk of court's office. A wedding ceremony can and should be superfluous...

This has been my solution from Day One: State-sanctioned civil unions for all, which can be garnished with a marriage ceremony (church-sanctioned or otherwise) which would have no force of law if desired.


rocktivity

[Bluenorthwest]

31. A wedding ceremony already is superflous and not necessary

Many people get married without one. Many. No one is required to do a religious rite to marry in this country. Straight people have drive through weddings, and marry without leaving the car, on the day they met, for crying out loud, the evening after the morning the divorce of the last marriage is final, they can pick up a stranger, marry the stranger, and never spend a full day single.

[Warpy]

32. Nearly all states require a signature from a ceremony

officiator, whether it's a judge or JP for the godless or some official, robed god botherer for the believers.

The body of law governing civil unions should be activated when both parties are witnessed signing the license. A ceremony should be optional.

[Radical Activist]

21. Good comment.

Marriage is a legal contract regarding property rights, taxes and potential parental obligations. That's exactly how it should be treated.

[rurallib]

3. consenting adults? I care not what they do to be honest.

just don't shove your fucking religion up my ass.

[Johonny]

11. If two consenting adults want to shove religion up each others asses

I'm ok with that too.

[Radical Activist]

23. And with a quick google search you can find several interesting ways to do that.

(Warning! This link is sexual and offensive!}
http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php

[sarge43]

6. My husband and I were legally married by a JP.

Every civil institution from the federal gov't to our town hall calls this a marriage, not a civil union. Same sex couples must have the same right. No one's marriage should be down graded to 'civil union' because some Bronze Age rule book says so.

It's equal protection under the law.

[Cleita]

7. So what! I have nothing against polygamy among

consenting adults as long as it goes both ways (multiple husbands too) and children aren't involved as marriage partners. On one of the Star Treks (I forget which one), the alien doctor had five or six wives and the wives had an equal number of husbands, which gives extended family a whole new meaning. In their culture, it made sense because of extended space voyages away from the spouses, they would have other spouses to content themselves with until the return of that partner.

[haele]

8. Polygamy has a long cultural history. Just like monogamous marriages

Just like historical bonds identified as "brotherly" or "sisterly" relationships - some considered more important than a marriage itself - that were not based on having or raising children.
The military used to have a saying - "you weren't issued a wife and kids in your dittybag" - identifying your bonds to your fellow soldiers and your duty were to be considered more important than your bonds to your spouse.

The only slippery slope I see would be a break-down of the current legal concept of marriage being a legal partnership contract between consenting adults.
Operative components of marriage being "Consenting Adults" and "Legal Partnership".

Haele

[david13]

9. I haven't heard that one before. But it doesn make sense. When

Utah and the Mormons became a state, they had to pass a law against polygamy, and begin ostensibly to prohibit it, and prosecute it, which they didn't and they had to swear on a stack of bibles that they would not allow it, and would give it up. Which they never have.
What this real argument may be then, is ... if you allow gay marriage, we (Mormons, Utah) now have the right to have our polygamy taken out of the closet and legally recognized.
Non sequitir. It doesn't follow. Or does it. But I don't care if Utah does have polygamy. Why would I give a crap one way or another?
dc

[bergie321]

10. I don't care

As long as there isn't a tax advantage for doing it and they are all consenting adults.

[Tesha]

12. Ultimately, we allow any number of prople to form a corporation or a...

...business partnership to accrue certain business/
monetary/economic benefits. Why shouldn't we allow
any number of persons to form the financial (etc.)
union we refer to as a marriage (or could call just
as easily call a "civil union")?

And let religions define their religious marriages
in any of the many mutually-conflicting ways they
do now.

Tesha

[rocktivity]

13. Here's a terriffic article someone posted here yesterday

Apples and Oranges: Polygamy and Gay Marriage

...In the secular sense, marriage is a contractual agreement, recognized by the state, between two (consenting) adults wherein the parties agree to satisfy specific legal obligations to one another that are implicit until divorce or death makes them explicit. Those legal obligations are based on ideals of equity and, in many instances, equality. Arguably, there is no clear way (and maybe no way at all) to adjudicate equitable or equal distribution of property or obligation in any polygamous union.

...(I)n a case of polygyny (one husband, multiple wives), the husband has a 50% stake in the arrangement he makes with each wife, but each wife cannot have the same stake in her husband. As the number of wives increases, each woman’s stake diminishes proportionally. A wife’s interests in a polygynous union simply cannot be equal to that of her husband...There has to be a pecking order among wives as only one can be named the agent in living wills or advanced-health-care directives...

If one wife were to leave a polygynous union, how — under a system of equitable distribution — is she to adequately protect her interest? How is the state supposed to assign value to her contribution to the union, and how is the husband’s contribution to the entire arrangement supposed to support both the exiting wife and those who remain?

...These issues do not arise in the instance of gay marriage...(Its)...only difficulty...remains (in)...distaste for homosexuality...

Polygamy is not marriage in the legal/constitutional sense. The "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than a baseless, dishonest scare tactic meant to continue smear gays with the brush of unholy sexual deviancy.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. Excellent read! Thank you for posting it (eom)

[Radical Activist]

24. All you're showing is that it would be complicated.

That's definitely true and why I think it would never appeal to most people.

The editorial asks:
"How is the state supposed to assign value to her contribution to the union, and how is the husband’s contribution to the entire arrangement supposed to support both the exiting wife and those who remain?"

Yet, these same issues are muddled through in divorce and child custody courts every weekday. No one can argue that dividing property in a divorce is easy. Even how to divide money within a monogamous marriage is the cause of many divorces so that's not easy either. If we're going to ban polygamy because the legal and financial issues become complicated then logically we should ban monogamous marriages too.

[laconicsax]

14. Marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself on this subject.

Marrige is a civil matter. The only religious aspect is that participants may elect to have a religious joining ceremony.

Redefining the institution to appease bigoted religious sensibilities is ridiculous. It's a civil matter, not a religious one, no matter what lies loud bigots repeat ad nauseum. The choice is between rewriting thousands of statutes to accommodate religious bigots, and simply telling those bigots to fuck off.

[Dappleganger]

15. Any contract between consenting adults should be allowed.

While I don't know the tax implications of this, personally I don't see a problem as long as they parties are adult and know what they're doing. Otherwise, it's nobody's business.

[msongs]

17. how bout dowries? with every cow u get a free....wife nt

[rocktivity]

27. When I told an Ethiopian that I was one of five daughters

He said that in his country's olden days, my father would have been the richest man in town, because he'd have gotten a big fat dowry every time he married off one of us!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Stevenmarc]

19. Betty Bowers Explains it Best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[Radical Activist]

20. I don't think it's a ridiculous slippery slope argument at all.

There's no logically consistent reason to outlaw one but not the other. That doesn't really bother me.

When people write about the horrors of polygamy it almost always involves something that's illegal for other reasons, such as statutory rape of a minor, coercion, or physical abuse. That says more about the nature of cults living on the margins of society than it says about polygamy itself.

[Poboy]

22. How many wives did King David of the Old Testament have and what were their names?

Wives of King David

I Chronicles 3. In a few sentences it lists all descendants of King David, from his 11 children by 7 wives to descendants of King Solomon, some 30 generations. I Samuel also mentions another wife.

Eight wives were named in the Bible, but there were numerous other wives that were not named.
Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail the Carmelitess, Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Michal, and Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel.

1 Samuel 19 ALSO identifies Merab who was given to David by her father Saul.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wives_did_King_David_of_the_Old_Testament_have_and_what_were_their_names

[WolverineDG]

25. If not recognize polygamy, at least decriminalize it

between consenting adults. The fact that it is a crime has pushed it underground & made members of groups who practice it incredibly secretive & distrusting of outsiders. And because they're not willing to talk to outsiders, they are often targets of sensationalist journalism & books full of exaggerations at best & outright lies at worst by ex-members who have an agenda ($$$).

dg

[smalll]

28. Hi! I started a thread on this issue in GDP a couple of days ago, take a look --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x397774

After readling all the responses,

1) I'm pretty much re-assured that gay marriage doesn't have to be a slippery slope to polygamy.

2) I'm still entirely convinced that legalized polygamy would be terrible for society, in so many ways. Polygamy is NOT another subject where the "none of my business" crowd is correct.

[daleo]

29. It creates great scope for inequality

Rich people (mostly men probably) could have multiple trophy spouses. Paternalistic religions would treat wives like brood mares, even more so than they already do. Monogamy, with all its faults strikes me as inherently more egalitarian.

Then there are the practical issues. Imagine divorce in multiple spouse households - I divorce Sally, Jennifer and Dan, but want to stay married to Carol, Joe and Alice. Who gets visitation rights? Who gets custody?

I just don't like the idea on a whole lot of grounds.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Churches that will marry same sex couples are not that rare, sir

The whole post is a mess. You are confused about too many things to even try to correct you. Let me give you this one. If we wanted a ceremony of marriage, in a religious sanctuary, we easily could do so, right now, and all involved can call it marriage, or union, or macaroni if they want to. Religious freedom. The government, they are the ones who will not under any circumstances extend the legal and financial aspects of marriage to same sex couples. It is the government that confers all but the poetry, and the poetry is free to all right now. The government, which you say should be out of the picture, is the only element needed to make a marriage.
Good gravy.

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. They're not rare?

What percent of churches in the US are willing to marry gays? Would anyone argue with me saying less than one percent? How about less than one tenth of a percent? Would you say that there is a church that will marry gays in close proximity to every area of the country, including all areas in the deep south?

"You are confused about too many things to even try to correct you."

No, please. By all means what else do you wish to "correct" me on?

:popcorn:

[kevinbgoode]

34. Conservatives would never accept this compromise

for various reasons:

1. There are churches which marry gays, and that means "teh gays" can still use the word "married."

2. Conservatives would NEVER consent to having to actually go back to the church which "married" them and get a church-sanctioned "divorce." They might go get their civil union dissolved by the state, but giving the church sole power to convey "marriage" also means that separated couples would have to remain married in the Church's eyes, and it would carry more social weight than the weak, whining refusal of some churches to recognize divorce today.

3. Conservatives believe there is a social caste system (with themselves at the top, naturally). This system is based on a combination of things, usually unrelated to any sort of actual talent or tangible contribution to society. These involve, for example, heterosexuality (it used to be gender and/or race and religion) and conservatives have their identities threatened if a citizen is judged on character rather than assigned social stereotype (by them.) This is why conservatives have no problem sanctifying the marriages of child abusers or sexual offenders, spousal abusers, serial rapists, etc. . .they are all heterosexual and thus have superior value to society. Without a social caste system, conservatives have no one to feel superior over, and once again their reasons for securing special rights for themselves are removed.

[Ignis]

35. Polygamy is a response to environmental pressures.

We have no environmental pressures in the US that make polygamy an adaptive trait.

In fact, in the few areas of the world where polygamy might be considered an adaptive trait due to environmental pressures, it has produced an excess of unmarried (and unlikely to ever be married) young men, who in the absence of other outlets, oppress women.

Not a good idea. At all. :thumbsdown:

[Warren Stupidity]

36. I have no problem with any consensual adult living arrangement.

I really think it is none of my business. I draw the line at penguins. Until somebody can demonstrate penguin consciousness and the required equivalent of 'adult consent', penguins are straight out.