Do gay-rights advocates forget about polygamists-rights?

Question

I agree that it is not a proper role of government to dictate who can
marry whom. That said, is there not a contradiction in allowing gay
marriage but prohibiting polygamous marriage?

For example, if the government does not have the authority to dictate that a marriage can be composed of only one man and one woman, how can it have the authority to dictate that a marriage can be composed of two-- and only two-- people? As long as all involved are consenting adults, why should anyone care who, and how many, they marry? Should simple tradition decide?

(Please do not give me the polygamy= abuse, domination explanation; there are many abusive monogomous marriages.)

Furthermore, an answer that states that polygamy can be banned
because it would change society too much sounds a lot like what
many conservatives are saying about gay marriage today.

FYI ... I am a conservative, straight guy, who is just trying to fully understand my position on gay marriage.

Answer 1

Sounds like you have pretty much made up your mind already. I do not feel that gay marriage should be banned or condoned. I am not gay and I do not care if anyone else is. If two adults wish to pledge their loyalty to one another, then that is their choice.
As for the sanctity of marriage in this country, it has alot to do with religion. Marriage was adopted by our fore-fathers as a legal ritual for two people to be responsible for each other and to each other. Over the course of time, it brought into law. People have to realize that America's founders were Christian. While the constitution states that there is to be a separation of Church and state, rarely does that fundamental exist. Marriage is a form of this non-separation. Instead it was incorporated into tax codes and otehr laws. I am not Christian, however, I do recognize the American way of life which includes the belief in marriage.

Answer 2

I agree with you that if the government shouldn't interfere with marital rights, which means gay marriage being allowed, then polygamy should be allowed as well. The answer to you query about the contradiction in the application of this view lies in your question; "as long as all involved are consenting adults?" The problem is that most polygamist marriages do not involve "consenting adults." Most of the females who enter into these unions are not "consenting" or "adult." That is where the "polygamy=abuse" thing that you hate so much comes from. In this respect, though, it cannot be assumed that all polygamist marriages involve underage girls. Also, please consider your statement that "there are many abusive monogamous marriages," which I take to mean that you think that because abuse happens in monogamous marriage then it is okay to happen in polygamist marriages. Abuse is not okay in North American society...ever. Let me state again that I agree with you about marital rights. I seriously do feel that "consenting adults" should have the right to marry whomever and however many people they want to. However a 14-year old girl living in a commune-like society doesn't really have a choice when she is told that she must marry and bear children to a 50-year old man.

Answer 3

I am a conservative gay guy and I sort of understand why you would ask a question like this.

But first, I disagree with your first statement. Government CAN dictate who may marry whom. With only one exception: government cannot prohibit interracial marriage. Guaranteeing racial equality was the one and only purpose to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Second, getting back to you're point, you are insinuating that people choose homosexuality like they choose to have multiple spouses. Nobody who is gay believes that homosexuality is a choice. But there are plenty of people, like you, who believe that it is a choice. And you are worried that if the Courts "force" this society to accept gay marriage, then the supposedly "objective" courts will have to be consistent about the topic of marital rights and will next "force" society to accept polygamy.

I don't believe that the courts WILL do that, but I DO understand your fears. And I firmly believe that the Massachusetts Court was dead wrong to do what it did. I'm glad that, so far, the rest of the courts have not done the same thing.

Here's the thing: you CAN "discriminate." You CAN choose to legalize gay marriage but not polygamy (or vice-versa, for that matter). You can choose to legalize one, both, or neither. It is, in my opinion, a legislative choice.

But it is not supposed to be the choice of the courts. They are supposed to interpret laws the way they were meant to be interpretted, not cynically and not with sophistry.

Answer 4

With the polygamy thing you have numerous children who grow up with a father who cannot fulfill the role in the best interest of the children. With gay marriage that is not an issue because current law allows single men and women or men and women in a committed same-sex relationship to adopt. Evidence shows that there "may" be more stability in the gay commitment.
Gay "marriage" is not going to happen anytime soon simply because the term "marriage" is defined and is the fabric of any society. However, given the unraveling of that fabric with millions of shack-ups and millions of divorces due to affaris, alcohol and violence, etc., gay marriage may sneak in. Whatever, any society that does not recognize the gay commitment with full legal rights granted is an evil government. Rather, a homophobic government because to support something like that the elected's might be "found out." Ah, yes. Compromise one's ethics and morals to get elected and to stay elected. But we the public are to blame, we have our little groups and our special cultural issues and we let some self appointed activist stand up and point a finger. Multicultualism is the evil amongst us. So stay PC if you want to hold on to an important public service employment.

Answer 5

The government is not the real problem in the laws of marriage.

The religious groups are the main problem. Don't forget that nearly all in government were brought up to believe in god and some form of religion. It would be very difficult to separate religion from politics.

Although the constitution requires separation of church and state that is not the same as separating religion from politics. People do have the rite to follow the religion sect of their choice in most nations.

If you want things changed then go to where the real change has to be made and work for what you advocate there.

Also if you do not like what the government does then stop blaming and get busy doing something about it. Too many complain but do not even know who their local Representatives are.

If people want change then they have to work hard to make it happen. That means they should know who they vote for. If they do not vote then they most definitely need to keep their mouths shut.

Answer 6

Same-sex marriage doesn't change the design of marriage between two people. It's still between two people. Governments create and change laws all the time regarding marriage (taxes, benefits, child care, etc etc etc). The two-person marriage setup has a long tradition, and I suppose if governments wanted to change that to allow polygamous marriages, they could, though I think it's unlikely, and has little to do with removing gender from the requirements and definitions of marriage.

Answer 7

I too am a conservative, straight, male who has figured out his position on gay marriage.

My only problem is with the semantics. Just as my Ford is not a space shuttle, neither is a union between two men or two women a marriage. If they want to pick another name for it that's fine with me. When we allow two men to marry I want the right to marry my dog or motorcycle or both of them.

There is nothing preventing a same sex couple from entering into a contract complete with powers of attorney that will provide the same basic status as a married couple. Did you notice, when I said married, I didn't have to say heterosexual couple. Marriage is by definition a heterosexual union.

It's only my opinion but maybe it will help clear the air for you. Good luck, it took a while for me to figure out why I didn't like the idea.

Answer 8

Well, the thing is, polygamist marriges tend to be very destructive and are demeaning to the women that are involved. There's also a very high rate of incest and molestation in polygamist situations. There's very much a cult mentality about polygamy, and there are no positive benefits to having polygamists in our society.

On the other hand, the gays are harmless, really. I mean, comparing these two groups in terms of their right to marry is rather foolish anyway

Answer 9

You are right to be concerned. Gay Marriage is just a foot in the door for polygamists.

When you start to re-define marriage for the sake of one interest group, don't become suprised when others demand it.

Answer 10

Wickedness became rather undesirable in Noah's day. Noah preached the arriving destruction for some 60 years in the previous the flood got here. No-one different than he and his family contributors listened to God and have been given on the ark. babies improve as much as be like their mum and dad and the wickedness could have saved on getting worse and worse. that's rather like our time, Jehovah's Witnesses shop attempting to attain those with the information of this technique of issues end that's coming quickly, yet purely as in Noah's day, human beings are not rather listening yet some, you are able to no longer blame that on God, he constantly supplies warning by way of his human beings. properly! what do you recognize, a nonbeliever which would be swept away. no longer stunned