[Duane S.]

I often hear the argument that if we let two men or two women marry, then we also have to allow polygamy. I don't agree with that statement, but how would you counter it?

User Detail :  

Name : Duane S., Gender : M, City : Lubbock, State : TX Country : United States, 

[Normand O. L.]

The old sexual mores have, to a great extent, been rendered inoperative. Those mores have been rejected and replaced by sexual codes predicated on "preferences," with the genetic part of the argument having been practically abandoned for lack of scientific evidence. Taboos and ancient restrictions have been thus replaced by personal preferences. On what basis then, do we forbid polygamy? If there are four women who choose to be married to one man, if that is their preference, we must extend to them the same basic sexual freedoms that have been demanded and won by other former sexual minorities. i.e. homosexuals. The same can legitimately be said of other sexual practices that may not meet with the approval of the majority but that are engaged in by consenting persons: Incest. Pederastry. Even sexual relations between adolescents should be acceptable because age restrictions have no greater legitimacy than any other sexual restriction based on tradition/religion, etc. I'm sure those who propound the rightfulness of sexual "preferences" would agree with me - unless they would themselves choose to become the oppressors of different sexual minorities.

User Detail :  

Name : Normand O. L., Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Catholic, Age : 50, City : Alameda, State : CA Country : United States, Occupation : Mechanic, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Jim C.]

Many invalid, inflammatory arguments are made to try to justify continuing to deny gay people the right to marry. The argument that if same-gender marriage is permitted then polygamy will also have to be permitted is one of these. Polygamy is multiple spouses. It bears no resemblance to monogamy, regardless of the genders of the spouses. The purpose of claiming that the two are congruent is to confuse and demonize gay people. It's a common device used by bigots of any variety. As a gay man, I could list dozens of these things. In my opinion, it isn't worthy of too much energy because it is irrational and deliberately derisive.

User Detail :  

Name : Jim C., Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Christian, Age : 42, City : Rochester, State : NY Country : United States, Occupation : Medical Tech, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Andrew]

If you have a problem with homosexuals, that's your sad business. But to equate homosexuality, which harms no one, with incest and pederastry, which leave deep, permanent scars on victims, is simplistic, intellectually dishonest and without basis in fact. Such analogies are done with the sole purpose of inflaming others, and have no intent of educating anyone or engaging anyone in meaningful dialogue.

User Detail :  

Name : Andrew, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Huntington, State : NY Country : United States, Occupation : Reporter, Education level : 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[CV]

I too feel compelled to reject the equation of homosexuality with pederasty or pedophilia. There are pedophiles who desire little boys and pedophiles who desire little girls. What they do is very injurious. Sexual orientation is not chosen. Sexual practice is. All people must subscribe to the Doctor's oath to "first, do no harm." No minor is in a position to approve of having sex, whether it be with someone their own age or with an adult. Further, the "do no harm" clause also relates to health issues such as the transmission of diseases. It also is the guiding force between consenting adults who engage in kinkiness of different kinds. Anyone who does not follow that dictum is not a sexual partner but a predator.

User Detail :  

Name : CV, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Christian, Age : 40, City : Small Town, State : IA Country : United States, Occupation : Pastor, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Patricia19883]

I used to think we should allow same-sex marriages. Why not, if they are in love? But then I started to think what else we would have to allow. If marriage is a bond between those in love and in a commitment, so too could polygamists ask for marriage. Their commitment just happens to be with multiple partners who all agree with that type of relationship. I don't know how to argue my point. However, I do believe that some social norms should just remain the same. If not, you allow marriage to become available to all sorts of relationships. To me, marriage was intended for two loving people, particularly of the opposite sex. Let tradition remain, or else I fear we will set precedence for just about anything. Would we then have to consider allowing older people to marry minors? After all, the same argument can be made for such arrangements. If they are in love and want to obtain marital status, wouldn't we have to let them because of the precedent set for homosexuals and polygamists? I think it would open a can of worms, no matter how unfair people think it might me. I am tolerant of all types of people and the least bit judgmental, but as I said before, some social norms and mores should just not be changed.

User Detail :  

Name : Patricia19883, Gender : F, Race : Hispanic/Latino (may be any race), Age : 24, City : Wesley Chapel, State : FL Country : United States, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, 

[Glenn O.]

I feel the issue is more based on political motives of keeping the religious "anti-gay" sects happy, and also to keep the federal government from having to pay Social Security survivor benefits to the gay partners who are left when their spouse passes on.

User Detail :  

Name : Glenn O., Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Searching, Age : 28, City : Austin, State : TX Country : United States, Occupation : Electronics Technician, Education level : Technical School, Social class : Lower middle class, 

[Joshua A.]

I disagree with the assumption that allowing gay marriages would open the doors for other traditions or laws to be brought down. The guidelines for each individual in the same-sex relationship would be the same as in straight marriages: No polygamy, incest, etc. All of the requirements of both people in straight or gay relationships would be exactly the same. Straight people can't practice polygamy, and gay people can't practice polygamy.

User Detail :  

Name : Joshua A., Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Christian, Age : 20, City : San Antonio, State : TX Country : United States, Occupation : Item processing-bank, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Upper middle class, 

[SW]

All the arguments people make in general and have made in this forum about how allowing gay marriage will open up the doors for polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage can be made equally well about interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was traditionally prohibited in some societies, including the United States, but that prohibition has been (at least legally) ended. One could argue that if traditional strictures about marrying only one's "own kind" were lifted in order to allow people the freedom to marry whomever they loved regardless of race that the gates would then be opened to allowing people to marry whomever they wanted regardless of age, sex or number. But that clearly did not happen. Similarly, ending restriction of marriage rights based on gender does not entail ending restrictions based on age or number of people involved.

User Detail :  

Name : SW, Gender : F, Sexual Orientation : Lesbian, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Pagan, Age : 31, City : Berkeley, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Chaelleigh]

I think not. I think part of the problem is a confusion between the religious portion (some would say sacrament, others ceremony or covenant) of marriage and the civil (legal) contract of marriage. I do not care about which churches allow marriage. That, by law, is up to the individual churches. Some perform the ceremony only for members, some only for believers. The legal aspects of marriage is an issue separate from church/religious beliefs. Our country was founded on a separation of church and state; our forefathers did not conceive a nation to become a theocracy. The legal contract is between two people to share responsibility for one another - care for one another. This alleviates the burden of illness and old age on society. That is the portion of marriage that benefits society. In exchange, married couples are afforded numerous benefits, mostly monetary, such as cheaper rooms; there are the social benefits such as knowing that the primary person in your life is the one who will be with you and make all decisions in the event of catastrophic illness. Polygamy is another ball game. I think it would entail a much more complicated contract structure. What truly offended me is how you (and you are not alone, unfortunately) dared to throw in pedastry. Children are not psychologically nor legally able to give consent. That is why, even in the case of consent by a teen, a person can be prosecuted for statutory rape. I was sexually abused as a child; it had nothing to do with love for me, nor was it an equal sharing, an expression of both parties' love. It was not in any way beautiful; it made me feel dirty and ashamed. There is a group called Man Boy Love that continues to attempt to lessen the effects of adult/child 'love' (it's not love because of the inherent power imbalance) and attempts to include themselves in the gay-lesbian-bi-transgender community. It should be noted that in Baltimore a few years ago, they were not allowed to march in the Gay Pride Parade. They are not the same. I think people need to stop throwing everything into two categories: acceptable and unacceptable, and start realizing that there are things that are acceptable to them and things that are foreign to them, and then there are those that are unacceptable to them and yet other things that are harmful to all parties involved.

User Detail :  

Name : Chaelleigh, Gender : F, Sexual Orientation : Lesbian, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Wiccan, City : Laurel, State : MD Country : United States, Occupation : Librarian, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, 

[Tom T]

Being 'poly' myself, I find this conversation pretty interesting. A lot of you are characterizing polygamy as some dirty, evil thing. You are submitting yourselves to the same social stereotypes that have stygmatized gays all these years. Open, honest polygamous, or to use a more modern term, polyamorous relationships have nothing to do with outrageous sex orgies or patriarchial control that you may be thinking of. Most modern polyamorous relationships are feminist and egalitarian, not patriarchial, i.e. men and women have an equal say. We live together, love one another, raise our children together, just like any other family. Why NOT have more adults around to raise and care for our children? Isn't that what all these conservatives have been moaning about? If you could look beyond your social stereotypes, maybe you could realize that there are actually far more options for living and loving than you have allowed yourself to imagine!

User Detail :  

Name : Tom T, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Bisexual, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Unitarian, Age : 26, City : Normal, IL, State : IL Country : United States, Occupation : computer technician, Education level : 4 Years of College, 

[Naomi W.]

There are a lot of scare tactics being thrown around by the right to try to discredit same gender marriage. The truth is, marriage is an evolving process, and up until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the United States. The only way to respond, I believe, is to talk about civil marriage as a contract between two consenting, unrelated adults. The government has no right to recognize one group that fits this criteria (opposite gender couples) and arbitrarily exclude another group that also fits this criteria (same gender couples).

User Detail :  

Name : Naomi W., Gender : F, Sexual Orientation : Lesbian, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Agnostic, Age : 45, City : Standish, State : ME Country : United States, Occupation : Organizer, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Lower class, 

[Rusty]

I think it is acceptable to say that in today's culture the age of consent is arbitrary, but it must be 'set' at some point. As this society becomes more 'secular' and (I use the term loosely) tolerant, some groups want society to be tolerant of their viewpoint. Take pedophiles, for example. Sex with children is wrong, period, but some in the field of psychology would say that it's wrong not intrinsically but because of the negative and apparently arbitrary stigma associated with pedophilia. Even the word pedophile, in my mind, has a sick essence to it. Get rid of the value judgments placed on such behavior and the behavior becomes 'normalized' and thus OK. The homosexual movement comes to mind at this point. Maybe this post has a place in the religious section, because I think my point is pointless without pointing to an absolute moral lawgiver outside of society. If child sex is wrong because society says it's wrong, then society can change to tolerate another view. Only some in the United States were intolerant of slavery, but society changed and tolerance for slavery as far as I can tell has become completely intolerable. Conversely, Corrie Ten Boom was 'immoral' for hiding Jews during the Holocaust because THAT society said it was wrong to do such a thing. So, with no 'eye in the sky' watching over us, no accountability to a Creator who will judge, these kinds of associations (homosexuality/incest/ pedophilia) are perfectly sound and will be used by those who are being restrained by society from acting as they wish in an effort to change society's collective attitude toward their deviance.

User Detail :  

Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Author]

Posts