IF gay unions are state-recognized...

[A18]

Some people are saying they support state recognition of gay 'marriage' but not polygamy?

Someone please explain how this makes sense.

[opebo]

I think both are prefectly fine, and also none of my business.

[PBrunsel]

If gay unions are recognized just open up the flood gates and let everything in.

[David S]

I think both are prefecly fine, and also none of my business.

I don't think they are perfectly fine, but I agree that its none of my business.

[opebo]

I think both are prefecly fine, and also none of my business.

I don't think they are perfectly fine, but I agree that its none of my business.

Interesting!  But I guess the last part of your statement is what's really important from a libertarian point of view.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

No...as posted in the other thread, real world polygamous relationships involve the subjugation of women, which society should not encourage or allow.

[A18]

I don't even think it'd be completely opening the floodgates. Gay marriage is in no way, shape, matter, or form better.

The 'real world societies' crap isn't what we're talking about. If three women in this country want to get 'married'--and there are--should their union be recognized?

[opebo]

No...as posted in the other thread, real world polygamous relationships involve the subjugation of women, which society should not encourage or allow.

Why not?  They voluntarily enter into the bargain.  Being 'subjugated' is often a trade-off for economic benefit, just as in, for example, working for an employer.

[John Dibble]

Yes, even if I think it's immoral(or just plain stupid - dealing with just one woman is hard enough).

As far as letting everything else be recognized - well, define everything else.

If you mean group marriages involving any number of people, yeah, might as well allow that, no different from polygamy really(though like polygamy we'd need to figure out some kind of tax code for it, I would just say that everyone should file as individuals).

If you mean human-animal marriages you're an idiot, because animals aren't citizens, can't pay taxes, and are regarded as property for the most part. How the hell would consent even be given?

If you mean incest, well, that's a wierd area, but there would be different grounds to say it shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who'd want to marry a direct family member would probably have some sort of psychological disorder, so consent would be impossible to give due to lack of proper mental capacity.

Same with pedophile marriages - children are too young to give consent.

EDIT - my preference would be that no form of marriage would be state recognized. Anyone who wants to consent to give another person legal power(power of attorney, to enter the emergency room, gaurdianship over children[with consent from all current gaurdians, not just one on a whim], and other rights given by state recognized unions). But I doubt it will happen.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't even think it'd be completely opening the floodgates. Gay marriage is in no way, shape, matter, or form better.

The 'real world societies' crap isn't what we're talking about. If three women in this country want to get 'married'--and there are--should their union be recognized?

In three women example, I guess I would have to say that that is OK.  But this what NOT we usually think of as polygamy.  

[A18]

Got it, so you approve. How about incest?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't even think it'd be completely opening the floodgates. Gay marriage is in no way, shape, matter, or form better.

The 'real world societies' crap isn't what we're talking about. If three women in this country want to get 'married'--and there are--should their union be recognized?

In three women example, I guess I would have to say that that is OK.  But this what NOT we usually think of as polygamy.  

To amend my own statement:

Although I don't have any theoretical problem with the three-women example, I think it would be OK for society to outlaw all marriages of more than two people.  This is because, in practice, the "equal" multiple-person marriages would be so rare in number, that little harm would be done by banning them just to make sure that "unequal" polygamous marriages are not permitted.

[opebo]

I don't even think it'd be completely opening the floodgates. Gay marriage is in no way, shape, matter, or form better.

The 'real world societies' crap isn't what we're talking about. If three women in this country want to get 'married'--and there are--should their union be recognized?

In three women example, I guess I would have to say that that is OK.  But this what NOT we usually think of as polygamy.  

To amend my own statement:

Although I don't have any theoretical problem with the three-women example, I think it would be OK for society to outlaw all marriages of more than two people.  This is because, in practice, the "equal" multiple-person marriages would be so rare in number, that little harm would be done by banning them just to make sure that "unequal" polygamous marriages are not permitted.

You seem to assume that inequality within marriage will automatically favor the male party - I hold the opposite view.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't even think it'd be completely opening the floodgates. Gay marriage is in no way, shape, matter, or form better.

The 'real world societies' crap isn't what we're talking about. If three women in this country want to get 'married'--and there are--should their union be recognized?

In three women example, I guess I would have to say that that is OK.  But this what NOT we usually think of as polygamy.  

To amend my own statement:

Although I don't have any theoretical problem with the three-women example, I think it would be OK for society to outlaw all marriages of more than two people.  This is because, in practice, the "equal" multiple-person marriages would be so rare in number, that little harm would be done by banning them just to make sure that "unequal" polygamous marriages are not permitted.

You seem to assume that inequality within marriage will automatically favor the male party - I hold the opposite view.

Almost all societies in history that have permitted polygamy have involved one man marrying many wives.  These societies have also categorically expected women to play a submissive role in society.

[Lunar]

It's not the government's business to sanction marriages at all!  Leave it to the churches.

If you need some kind of government tie so your spouse(s) can have hospital visits, group taxes, and so on, then simply have the government issue civil unions.  You could get a civil union with your mother if that's what you want.

[A18]

...This is really pathetic...

[CollectiveInterest]

Some people are saying they support state recognition of gay 'marriage' but not polygamy?

Someone please explain how this makes sense.

If I was persuaded polygamy were truly consensual I wouldn't have a problem. But the way it has been portrayed to me it is often non-consensual.

Can you get your mind around this?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Republicans....the world's only bedroom-police political party.  

[Citizen James]

Heavens, what's next?  Interracial marriage?

</Sarcasm>

Wasn't too long ago that many people considerered that to be immoral and subject to legistlation.  I wouldn't be too suprised if some forum members actually still thought that way (though I doubt they would admit their bigotry quite so openly)

[opebo]

Republicans....the world's only bedroom-police political party.  

Hah, if only it were so - these types abound in many parts of the world.

[Nym90]

I strongly support marriage as a union between two people. Thus I don't support polygamy, at least not as recognized by the government.

Slippery slope arguments are, as a general rule, almost always overly simplistic.

[ATFFL]

If polygamy were allowed in an egalitarian manner I would have 2 offers of marriage from married women within a week.

No real point, just saying.

[opebo]

If polygamy were allowed in an egalitarian manner I would have 2 offers of marriage from married women within a week.

No real point, just saying.

Um... you're schtuping some married ladies? Right on!

[ATFFL]

If polygamy were allowed in an egalitarian manner I would have 2 offers of marriage from married women within a week.

No real point, just saying.

Um... you're schtuping some married ladies? Right on!

Isn't "schtuping" a wonderful word?

[Brambila]

Heavens, what's next?  Interracial marriage?

</Sarcasm>

Wasn't too long ago that many people considerered that to be immoral and subject to legistlation.  I wouldn't be too suprised if some forum members actually still thought that way (though I doubt they would admit their bigotry quite so openly)

It was considered immoral by uneducated people. For instance, the Catholic Church has always allowed interracial marraige, never condemning it. A man and a women produce a child. However, two gay men can't make a child. Therefore, the point of marriage is completely missed.

In addition, English Law never banned interracial marriage- it's really a 20th century thing. In the south, many slave owners would marry their slaves.