Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

To have legal same sex marriages in all 50 states would you be willing to usher other unions in as well?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26834points) December 13th, 2009

If getting same sex marriages legal and recognized In every state but to do so plural, and inbred marriages had to be included with it? On short you might have Steve and Justin living across the street as whatever they coin themselves, “he and she”, “He and he” etc, have Donald, Meg, Suzie, Liz, and Kate living 2 doors down on the right, and blood brother and sister Lars and Mindy living next door n your left. To get same sex marriage you willing to let incestuous and polygamous marriages ride in to?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

110 Answers

syz's avatar

Why this insistence on equating equal rights for gays with completely unrelated situations? Apples and oranges. Stop clinging to ridiculous arguments.

Blondesjon's avatar

I agree with @syz. How hard is it to write a no incest, not bestiality, clause into a law. Very foolish kids.

gemiwing's avatar

How is letting two grown adults marry in a healthy relationship comparable to incest, child sex-abuse and child marriage?

colliedog's avatar

I draw that line at marriages across species. But other than that, who cares? Everyone’s entitled to the same misery as heterosexual couples.

Dog's avatar

I am also with @syz on this.

HighShaman's avatar

I too agree with syz on this .

Same Sex marriage should, in NO WAY , be compared to Beastality, Inscest , and child relationships….

dpworkin's avatar

We are talking about couples who love each other being allowed to express their love in a normative way. How this allows even for the contemplation of incest or polygamy or polyandry is just beyond fathoming. It has the ring of bigotry, and I really object to the question being framed this way.

DominicX's avatar

No, I can’t say I would. Legal same sex marriage should be allowed without anything to do with the other ones.

I’m not so sure this question was implying they were comparable to incestuous marriage and such, more that it was proposing a hypothetical situation where same sex marriage was allowed as a package deal with incestuous and other non-standard marriages. I could be wrong, though.

Blondesjon's avatar

@pdworkin . . . Yet another example of how we are force fed fear in so many facets of our everyday lives.

tinyfaery's avatar

Ho hum. I knew this would begin to happen again. Just when I thought we had it all sorted out.

Kayak8's avatar

1. Some of the laws that prohibit marriage between close relatives are designed to broaden the gene pool and avoid preventable birth defects, disabilities or miscarriage of the off-spring.

2. There are laws that protect children from undesirable sexual advances and from child marriage (which has very real adverse physical and mental health consequences).

3. Polygamy (as is traditionally practiced with one husband and many wives) creates huge power inequities and lose of women’s rights.

Gay marriage, just like interracial marriage before it, doesn’t hurt anyone else.

Creating comparisons like these are specious at best.

nikipedia's avatar

Actually, I would support a law enabling plural marriage anyway. As long as all parties are consenting, I don’t have any problem with that at all.

The wording of this question was pretty incendiary. Did you intend it to be insulting or are we reading it wrong?

druebeall's avatar

Actually it is a door opener.

Blondesjon's avatar

@druebeall . . . the same can be said for existing marriage laws.

dpworkin's avatar

A door opener? What does that mean? Well within my personal memory it was illegal for interracial couples to marry, and the same “slippery slope” arguments were made then. It was just as bogus and ugly and based on bigotry as this question is now.

fireinthepriory's avatar

GA @pdworkin. There’s nothing more to say about this, because if someone can’t see that the arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are the same and that these marriage are COMPLETELY UNLIKE incest and child sex abuse, there is absolutely no hope for them. They “relationships” listed in the Q are not a package deal, and they never will be.

stemnyjones's avatar

This is by far the single most ignorant and hateful question I have seen on any Q&A website.

Seeing as your avatar is (I’m guessing) you kissing your interracial S/O, I would think you would be more open-minded to the fact that sometimes laws and opinions are based around reputations or unfair judgements of others, and that they need to be changed. Otherwise one of you might be a slave, and it would be seen wrong in the eyes of society for you to be kissing. Shit, you might even be killed for it.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@gemiwing Did you read the question? Where in there did you see anything about child marriage or child sex, or child abuse anywhere in the question? Do I need to get an interpreter to make the question more understandable or what?

fireinthepriory's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Ok, never mind about child sex abuse. I read it in the comments and forgot it wasn’t in the question. Still, though… it’s not fair to compare same-sex marriage to incest. Polygamy, maybe, since no one is being hurt (so long as it’s consensual of course), but most cases of close incest are rape, not consensual. And for that matter, if a brother and a sister really honestly are in love and want to get married, I don’t really give a shit so long as they don’t reproduce.

Shemarq's avatar

Different issues altogether. Someone does not choose to be gay, they just are. They are entitled to the same rights and protection as every other married couple.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@HighShaman Why not? Why should same sex marriage which is outside traditional marriage be allowed and not incest unions and plural marriages be it more than one husband or more than one wife (when more than one wife is far more traditional than same sex marriage) not be allowed? Why do only Gays get to marry and be with one they love an no other outside the traditional marriage?

Narl's avatar

I completely agree with @syz

ShiningToast's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Check out @pdworkin‘s or @syz ‘s post for your answer instead of ignoring their well crafted arguments.

stemnyjones's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Once blacks marrying whites wasn’t a traditional marriage.

stemnyjones's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central And I hate to do this, but it was once traditional for white people to own black people as slaves. Why does tradition make it right?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@nikipedia I think people are reading it way wrong. So many people read forced marriages, arranged marriages, child sex, child marriages all through that question and THERE WAS NONE THERE! It is a subject people want to avoid because to be totally logical AND fair with it they would have to do what is being called on the rest of us to to. accept what is not usual or traditional. I just want to know if those who would support same sex marriages would want to deny that right to people who wanted to inbreed or have plural marriages is that is what they so choose to do? And if they don’t want them to have the marriage make up they want how do they justify same sex?

ShiningToast's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Same sex marriage doesn’t adversely affect the gene pool. There are laws against incestuous marriages for a reason.

stemnyjones's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Because people are born gay. We don’t choose that way. No one is born incestual.

Seek's avatar

I think what the OP is asking is this:

If the right to same-sex marriages were to be guaranteed, provided plural or consensual incestuous marriages also be legalized on the same bill, would you approve of the bill?

IF that’s what she’s asking, my vote is for “yes”, in the case of plural marriage. I couldn’t care less who wants to marry whom. There’s little enough happiness in this life, and it’s the only one we get. Let people do what makes them happy.

I don’t agree with the legalisation of incestuous marriage, however.

dpworkin's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr The difference has been pointed out more than once in this thread, but I will try once more: Plural marriage and incest each have invidious social consequences. Gay marriage has not. It is similar to asking, if marijuana could be legalized would you be willing to accept the legalization of administering heroin to children. It is a bogus argument, a straw man fallacy, a bit of ugliness as vicious as racialism, and the question needn’t be posed.

nikipedia's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central: I think you have an extremely interesting and valid point to make, but there is probably a better way to ask this question. It seems to me like you intentionally asked this question in an incendiary tone, and now are pretending to be confused about why people are acting so riled up.

You really have me stumped on the incest thing. As long as the couple didn’t plan to have children, I can’t think of a single reason to forbid it. But the idea still gives me a bad feeling.

@pdworkin: What are the invidious social consequences of plural marriage and incest? (Assuming all parties are consenting.)

Seek's avatar

I apologise, @pdworkin, I edited my response shortly before you posted your reply. Forgive me, I’m not yet quite used to people seeing my responses so quickly ^_^ I’ll learn to edit before posting.

ShiningToast's avatar

8 observers? This thread is hot stuff.

Seek's avatar

@pdworkin I Still have no aversion to plural marriages, provided, of course, that all parties have appropriate power of attorney paperwork on file to avoid the possible onslaught of legal trouble in case of death or debilitating illness.

dpworkin's avatar

Incest is a cross cultural taboo worldwide for genetic reasons, and polygyny has social consequences to the rights of women, and those of young men. The women endure a form of enslavement and the young men are ejected from the community and allowed to sink on their own because they threaten the patriarchs’ plurality.

Seek's avatar

Those problems, @pdworkin, are with the religious community, not the members of the marriage itself. Plenty of women in two-member marriages are “enslaved” by the patriarch, as well. This, in and of itself, is not a reason to disallow three non-religious people from forming a consensual polygamous marriage.

dpworkin's avatar

We have had over 100,000 years to contemplate the consequences of incest and around 100 years to look at the consequences of plural marriage, and they have been found wanting. But name one adverse social consequence of a loving gay couple getting married, please.

Seek's avatar

@pdworkin
Entirely off the point. For one, I never said there was a problem with gay marriage. I’m quite the supporter. However, I also do not see an adverse social condition directly related to polygamous marriage. I DO see an adverse social condition directly related to fundamental Mormonism, but then I’m a baby-eating Atheist, and of course I would have a problem with religion.

stemnyjones's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning (other than ’“it’s not traditional”) as to why gay couples shouldn’t be married?

If it’s because you think it is immoral or a sin, I understand now, because religion has brainwashed you into believing that anyone different from yourself is sinning.

Or is it a different reason?

Blondesjon's avatar

I have said a million times that the best way to deal with this is to make ALL marriage illegal. Adjust medical benefits accordingly for a shared residence and shut the fuck up.

stemnyjones's avatar

@Blondesjon Honestly, if they would just do that (the thing with the medical benefits) right now, I would drop the whole same-sex marriage fight. Let people be ignorant… I don’t need a marriage to prove that me and my girlfriend’s love is real. But it’s ridiculous that me staying home to take care of my biological newborn baby means no benefits for me or baby, simply because the state doesn’t recognize my s/o as a legitimate partner, or a parent of my child, although she’s been there since before the baby was even born, and was the first person other than the delivering doctor that the baby saw.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

I don’t know but I’m perfectly happy in a community with none of the above… just sayin..

Blondesjon's avatar

@stemnyjones . . . 100% agreed.

Fyrius's avatar

I have no problem with incestuous or polygamous marriages between consenting adults.
It would be nice if the brothers and sisters would be so considerate as to adopt instead of reproducing by themselves, for obvious reasons, but other than that I see no sense in which I would have a reason or the right to bitch about people marrying each other.

dpworkin's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater What about the happiness of your gay friends and companions (because surely you have some, whether you know it or not.)

dpworkin's avatar

Spare you from having to contemplate your own selfishness? I can’t. You are sinning against your fellow human beings.

Seek's avatar

Certainly you do not agree, @NaturalMineralWater, with the current practice of completely disbarring life partners from visiting their dying beloved in the hospital, or the practice of preventing gay couples from adopting children, or allowing a gay person’s estate to be auctioned off by the government, and leaving their partner of 40 years homeless?

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@pdworkin ZZzzzzzz… we’ve been through this zomgamillionfriggintimes on fluther.. not interested in doing it again

@Seek_Kolinahr hmm.. yeah.. no idea what you’re talking about..

@whoever Before we get into the holy-hell-nmw-is-a-homophobe-asshole-lets-beat-him-up bullshit again… let’s just stop here.. i’m getting off the roller coaster.. ya’ll have fun with that…

Seek's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater – All of these things occur every day, because gay marriage is not legal.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@stemnyjones Here in the US the traditional marriage make up has been one woman, one man. We all know that, right? Did you see me say “Gays should not marry”? I don’t remember saying it. I could not be more simple. But let me make it even simpler; Gays want to marry whom they love. To get it are they willing to allow others who do not fit the mold of traditional marrtiage to have their marriage too if they getting their marriage had to pass side by side with Gay marriages? To say “I won’t mine even though not traditional, but you can’t have your untraditional marriage because of bla bla” now that would be the zenith of ignorance, hatred and bigotry. What I may or may not believe spiritually is no factor. If I am to be fair, me personally, don’t care about anyone else, to say Gay marriage be allowed but no other marriage outside the traditional mode I would be a hypocrite, from a non-spiritual logical world stand point

tinyfaery's avatar

Hetero marriage: fine by me.
Gay marriage: yes, please.
Polygamy: between consenting adults—okay by me.
Incestuous marriage: whatever floats your boat.
We can even have platonic marriage. If 2 or more friends decide that they are going to stay by eachother forever, and
care for eachother, I’m okay with that, as well.

I’m not sure why everyone is so fearful. What could happen. Maybe hetero couples will start divorcing in hoards. Oh, wait…

stemnyjones's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Apparantly NaturalMineralWater doesn’t have any idea of exactly what gay marriage being illegal entails, now does he/she seem interested in it, so I don’t think there’s much of a reason to argue with someone like them. They are hiding behind ignorance and aren’t worth trying to reason with. ;)

DrBill's avatar

I didn’t have kids with Peggy, Penny, Shelia, Linda, Tracy, Karen, Crystal, or Jeri the whole time we lived together.

DominicX's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater Of course you’re content with it. You’re a Christian traditionalist. I for one am not content with it because for me, it’s about the legal issues, not the religious issues.

Fyrius's avatar

There is a saying on the internet about traditions…

stemnyjones's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central The way that you say things leads me to believe that you do not believe gays should get married. Ignorant statements such as “Steve and Justin living across the street as whatever they coin themselves, “he and she”, “He and he” etc” are obviously born in hate.

To answer your question, I don’t see anything wrong with anyone who loves each other getting married. Whether or not they should have children is another thing, not because of hatred or bigotry but because of the health risks in the children.

Why is it any of your, or anyone else’s, business if someone else gets married?

Jude's avatar

@syz You couldn’t have written a better answer, IMO.

Jacket's avatar

There was similar rhetoric when interracial marriages was going to be allowed or not. For some people it is still an issue. This is in the same neighborhood. Maybe we need some Gay Panthers. There will always be people who wants to send other people to the back of the bus. Question is, why are we letting them?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@nikipedia PEOPLE make it incendiary. If they would do as Joe Friday and “Just the facts ma’am” they would not be popping veins in their necks. Gays say we should have the right to marry as heterosexual people as always done. Gay people say the fact they are Gay and outside the usual “marriage club” should make do difference in them getting married or not. We have gone through this twice in California but in Utah and Arizona if they let it be known or flaunt it too much polygamous unions get persecuted. Don’t they have the same right to marital happiness as Gays? So if Gays are to get marriages but only if polygamous and we are talking with consent for the dull normal people who misread the question in so many ways get to marry too, why would Gays not want that? Equality ALL around not just their end of the block?

syz's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central No. Again, they are separate and completely different issues. You seem unwilling or unable to understand that.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

DISCLAIMER: This response is framed within the mediation/devil’s advocate mode of operation.
– I’m completely pro-gay marriage.
– I wholeheartedly agree with all of the arguments here for it, those pointing out that it should not be compared to relationships that involve violence or a lack of consent, those that clearly outline the very real problems stemming from its illegality, etc. In my eyes those are excellent arguments in the context of “why legalize…”

.
but in this specific context,
I really think we’re being just as irrationally reactionary in this thread as the bigots we so despise.

Not once in the question does the OP oppose gay marriage, or say it is wrong in anyway. The point is, just as any oponent of gay marriage “knows it to be wrong,”
we also have our own understood “truths” about the problems behind incest, rape, the ignorance and idiocy of oposition, etc.

While we can certainly argue that the examples given were done so to draw unfair comparisons, project our own beliefs onto the poster and choose to cast him as “bigoted, religious, ignorant, absurd…”

The OP wants to know, how can one justify being opposed to all-inclusive equality and still demand equality for one specific group?

.
.
.
Now, be rational. Let’s consider our own statements more carefully before allowing the thread to digress further.
@pdworkin says “We are talking about couples who love each other being allowed to express their love in a normative way. How this allows even for the contemplation of incest or polygamy or polyandry is just beyond fathoming” Who are we to say that incestuous, polygamous, or polyamorous relationships don’t feature the same level of love and comittment? While true, classically these sorts of relationships have been riddled with problems, and queer relationships are generally much more healthy, stable, and love-filled than many heterosexual relationships, I’ve certainly known my share of unhealthy/abusive/etc. queer couples.

@stemnyjones says: ”@Hypocrisy_Central The way that you say things leads me to believe that you do not believe gays should get married. Ignorant statements such as “Steve and Justin living across the street as whatever they coin themselves, “he and she”, “He and he” etc” are obviously born in hate.”
-Did you stop to consider that sure, maybe the OP is coming from the side of oposition, thus the phrasing, but that perhaps he really does mean to engage in a logical discussion? Calling it born from hate is extremely loaded and reactionary, when the intent was not to be offensive, or even convey his position. There have been far more obviously hateful and offensive comments and questions here and on the internet. We’re only overreacting because it hits too close to home.

There’s so much invective and inflammatory language on our side I can’t even fully address it (or this would become way too long and stray more than it has from the main topic,) but honestly, how can we ever wonder why we never engage in a civilized discourse with regards to this issue?

syz's avatar

@Beta_Orionis But the point is that “groups” are not created equally. Homosexuals as a “group” are a subset of the population that occur in a relatively fixed percentage across social, racial, economic, and religious lines (and species, for that matter- it holds steady across the animal kingdom, too.). That and other research strongly support the belief that homosexuality is a naturally occurring genetic variation. Many of these other “groups” being bandied about are sociological subsets based on personal predilections, social norms, and quasi-religious beliefs (depending on your own perception). Apples and oranges.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@stemnyjones So rather me saying “however they coin themselves” I should just assume how they want to be called? Believe it or not I have had Gay friends in the past before they moved, or I moved. Some of them had a relationship where one was more the woman in the relationship and the other the guy. I guess close to the lesbian “butch” and Vanilla”. I have no ideal what to call them, I can’t say man and wife. Dude and dude has little reference to me. What am I to call them if I can’t ask them what they want to be called in their marriage?

I as everyone else born of hate because we are mortal men. Christ gives me grace to love. Man gives me reason to be logical and say if you are going for equality you don’t half step, you go ALL THE WAY FOR EVERYONE even those who make you squirm. I could say the same back, why care of 3 guys and one gal want to be married same as you?

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@syz Not exactly sure what you’re getting at. Can you afford me a little more explanation?

dpworkin's avatar

Polygyny is a matter of choice. Homosexuality is not, any more than people choose how much melanin their skin produces.

stemnyjones's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I have since answered your question. I don’t care if they get married.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@pdworkin I’m not arguing about the nature of the relationships at hand, just the idea of equality.

But if you want to get into that, what if for someone incest is natural? What if others are wired to love multiple individuals? Entering into a relationship and remaining together for the duration of life is also a choice. In both cases, choosing against a relationship might mean sacrificing fullfillment, happiness, financial stability, or any number of things.

phillis's avatar

This sounds just like an answer Payton gave about a week ago!! I’ve never explored why The blood tests are required. All I know is that, if the blood types aren’t compatible, then there’s a problem. But I DON’T know if they wont let you marry in that circumstance. I would be unable to support direct close relations marrying unless one of them got neutered. The US already has a hard enough time being weighted down with unwanted and unsupported children. Ones with preventable birth defects would crash the system. Other than that, if they want it, well….okay then. It will be THEY who suffer the societal and familial repercussions, not me.

dpworkin's avatar

I agree, If I made the rules, all would be free to choose. However, I am not as offended by a man not being able to choose polygyny as a lifestyle as I am by the thought of two people who were born to love those of the same sex being forbidden to exercise their love.

tinyfaery's avatar

Heh. “I’ve had gay friends.” We all know what that means.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@pdworkin I share your sensibility.

Still, we don’t know for sure that polygamists aren’t hard-wired for polygamy.
Calling polygamy a lifestyle could be just as false as the opposition labeling gay life the same, in which case you in turn would be forbidding 3+ people “born to love” multiple individuals from exercising their own love.

That get’s back to the denial of equality for one portion of the population because of your views on one hand while asking for equality for a different portion of the population on the other.

That’s not to say you personally are doing this as you’ve noted you’d allow universal choice, but it’s the exact hypocrisy the OP was hoping to discuss.

randomness's avatar

Look back to when interracial marriage was still illegal. People were up in arms at the suggestion of legalizing it for the same reasons you are when people suggest legalizing homosexual marriage.
If we let the blacks and whites marry, why not let EVERYONE marry? Soon, people will be wanting to marry dogs, and chairs!! People will want to marry their parents!! People will want to marry giant balls of fire!! SATAAAAAAN!!! SATAAANNNNN!!

Has any of this happened as a result of letting people with different skin marry? Nope. There is no logical reason to think that this will happen if we let gays and lesbians marry.

That said, I’ll humour you and answer your question. If it meant that gay marriage would be legalized, I’d have no problem letting people enter incestuous or polygamous marriages. Polygamy is something I have no issue with, providing that all involved are consenting adults. Incest is slightly different. I believe that if only consenting adults are involved, then sure, they can go ahead and get married for all I care. I think it’s gross, but really it’s not my decision, it should be theirs. However, I do think that they should have to undergo mandatory genetic testing before they can have children (but then again, I think that all couples should have to undergo mandatory genetic testing before they pop out their spawn, in order to save kids from being born with horrid and painful genetic diseases).

dpworkin's avatar

Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto

—Terentius

phillis's avatar

Okay, but if people start crawling out of the woodwork demanding equal rights for being in love with their dog, I’m drawing my first line in the sand. Shit, why can’t we just live and let live? Why do we have to pigeonhole every fucking thing that comes down the path? If there aren’t any societal or economic disadvantages, then why the hell should it matter? It isn’t affecting my life, one way or the other. Sorry,I just can’t hang with the PC crowd on this. If it isn’t solidly INCORRECT, then it gets a green light from me.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@pdworkin well appropriated.

Haleth's avatar

I realize this question is hypothetical, but in real life it’s very unlikely that we’d have to legalize polygamy or incest to get gay marriage legalized. When it comes to changes in the law and especially gay rights laws, there is a tendency to take small steps and be pragmatic. This summer I was really interested in following the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). There was a hugely polarizing debate in the gay community about whether trans people should be protected under the act. A lot of gay people were of the opinion that writing the law to protect only gay people for the time being was a lot more likely to pass, and that including trans people would torpedo their chances and they’d be back at the beginning. That’s why we’ve seen alternatives to legalized gay marriage like domestic partnership laws, which have less benefits legally but are easier to get ratified. In a fight to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states, it really wouldn’t help the gay rights cause to link gay marriage rights with polygamy and incest. It just wouldn’t happen.

Response moderated
phillis's avatar

Ooooh..I think I’m going to give myself some distance in light of that last comment. You guys have fun!!!
.
.
.
.
poof

Response moderated
Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@pdworkin What does the fact of people choosing to have more than one mate have anything to do with the price of tea in China? They should be denied the happiness Gay people are after because they were not “born” polygamist? I am not Gay but I could never play along as Gay to fit in anywhere or save my own neck. Those who say they are Gay but played it straight for decades in some cases not to be exposed, one can argue the validity of their Gayness, huh? What about people who just cohabitate never planning to marry? Or those who don’t care to have kids. Do society start figuring out where they should be penalized? The fact a person CHOOSES to be a polygamist or not has no barring on whether or not they should have a marriage equal to Gays if Gays can have one qual to traditional ones. Fairness goes beyond choice.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central @pdworkin has expressed that in a world under his rule, all would have freedom of choice.

syz's avatar

<Shakes head and goes away>

stemnyjones's avatar

@MacBean lmao @ the chart.

@Hypocrisy_Central Gay is not a God, it does not need to be capitalized.

Just sayin’.

ubersiren's avatar

I came late to the thread and don’t think I’ll realistically be able to read all the responses. But here’s mine. If it’s two (or more, why not?) consenting human adults, they should marry if they want to. Marrying children and animals is a non-issue. Children and animals cannot consent. I have mixed feelings on incest. But none of those issues have anything to do with gay marriage. To answer the question, I would not want any gay marriage vote to be combined with any other issue. It’s its own thing.

bea2345's avatar

Polygamy, no. That has implications for the rights of women, unless of course the husband adopts one traditional Nigerian pattern (I think Ibo): he provides a house for each of his wives and her children. I don’t know how that would work in an industrialized country like the US, where the nuclear family is considered the norm.

As long as the marriage is between consenting human adults, does it really matter?

nikipedia's avatar

Why is everyone assuming polygamy has to involve one man having multiple wives? I would love to have a couple husbands. They can play poker together on the weekends.

bea2345's avatar

@nikipedia – polygamy is the marriages of more than one woman to the same man. You are thinking of polyandry (1 wife, many husbands), which is, or was, practiced among some Tibetan peoples.

nikipedia's avatar

@bea2345: wikipedia disagrees!

The term polygamy (a Greek word meaning “the practice of multiple marriage”) is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, sociology, as well as in popular speech. Polygamy can be defined as any “form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse.”

Response moderated
jerv's avatar

I am with ubersiren on this; so long as both/all parties are consenting adults, I see no issues with them getting married.

As for incest, I think that the “consenting adults” part takes care of that. Besides, the risk of birth defects in the offspring of two first cousins in about equal to that of giving birth if the mother is in their late-30s/early-40s so unless it’s something that continues for a few generations it won’t really be an issue.

As for polygamy, many places tat do that have iffy records on women’s rights anyways so any claim that polygamy leads to an imbalance of power are rahter misleading.

bea2345's avatar

@nikipedia – I stand corrected. But your question (one man having multiple wives?) is a good one. There seems to be a general assumption that man is the bee (the pollinating agent) and woman the flower (the pollinated one). There was a song, with the line: “but woman must not ever fly / From bee to bee to bee.” Performed by Maurice Chevalier, it was pure satire.

asmonet's avatar

Frankly, this question deeply offends me.

caroj's avatar

Polygamous marriages are part of the bible. Incest happens, too, and not just without consent. And I think, technically, a brother and sister can get married in some states (though I don’t know for sure, nor really care). That said, I don’t think either case is comparable to same-sex marriage, nor does allowing same sex marriage lead to a slippery slope to me marrying my toothbrush.

nikipedia's avatar

@asmonet: The question, or the wording of it? And if the former, why?

asmonet's avatar

@nikipedia: The wording.

The fact that I just changed into my rainbow LGBTerrific! shirt before coming in here isn’t helping me see through this rationally.

And honestly, the comparisons just piss me off. Everything I’ve been compelled to say myself was taken care of by syz, and with more grace and brevity than I could manage.

jerv's avatar

@asmonet I can understand that since the “expansion” of it sounds slightly (okay, more than slightly) biased.

However you have to admit that, right or wrong, there are a fair number of people who do compare them so the question is valid regardless of what you think about the questioner.

Then again, I took it as more of an opinion poll in the first place.

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Personal attacks are not permitted, and have been removed.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@syz I’m well aware of this, but regardless of the nature of the group in question, what’s the rationale behind calling for equality for one group while being against equality for others? They’re not completely unrelated in that they are all forms of marriage that contradict the “traditional” definition. The OP does not bring them up as an argument against gay marriage, (if that had been the case your dismissal would be completely sound) but to discuss a possible hypocrisy.

Plus as I keep noting, where is our solid proof that incest, polygamy, etc. are never naturally occurring? Even if it were the tiniest of tiny minorities, projecting our values onto those groups and dismissing them as choices or lifestyles because they conflict with our own worldview is our version of the religious refusal to acknowledge homosexuality as natural.

MacBean's avatar

Yeah, I’d just like to note that my first removed quip was a comment on what it generally means when someone says “I’ve had gay friends.” General observation. Not personal attack. Guilty consciences or big egos (or a combination) took it that way and started the personal attacks. So what the fuck ever. Unfollowing this question now. Can’t stand the allowed bigotry. Cheers.

Beta_Orionis's avatar

@MacBean It was a personal attack in that it insinuated that you believe absolutely everyone that has ever used the phrase has the attributes you described, including the OP. It was not a truth (“general observation”,) but an expression of intolerance on your part. I don’t even care if you’ve really chosen to un-follow, because curiosity is a powerful draw, and even if you never see this, it’s worth pointing out to the rest of those on our side.

If you want acceptance, you have to accept.

Dr_C's avatar

So… how about we stop trying to influence who people can love and how they express it and let this topic die? Love is not something that should be subject to legislation… and comparing a consensual adult relationship that does not pose a threat of specific genetic issues (present in inbreeding) is not only reaching… it shows a specific bias and just a bit of ignorance. Having contributed… I’m done with this thread. I am saddened by some of the things posted here but accept everyone’s right to an opinion. (re-stating them and beating them to death… that’s another story).

tinyfaery's avatar

Ahem! I was the one who brought up what saying “I have a gay friends” actually means. Lame that @MacBean‘s comment was removed.

breedmitch's avatar

Dear God: Save us from this bullshit.

Silhouette's avatar

Yes I would. I’d usher in plural marriage and same sex marriage. Incestuous marriage wouldn’t be something I’d endorse.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther