Gay Marriage v Polygamy

[McCulloch]

Is there a comparison?

It has been alleged that the prohibition on gay marriage and on multiple simultaneous spouses are alike in that there is no secular reasons for either; these practices are banned by the governments which prohibit them for purely religious reasons.

For debate:

1. Is this claim true? Are there secular reasons to ban either or both of these practices?
2. If not, is it hypocritical to advocate for one but not the other?
3. Should we abandon secularism and impose theocracy?

[realthinker]

Is there a comparison?

It has been alleged that the prohibition on gay marriage and on multiple simultaneous spouses are alike in that there is no secular reasons for either; these practices are banned by the governments which prohibit them for purely religious reasons.

For debate:

1. Is this claim true? Are there secular reasons to ban either or both of these practices?
2. If not, is it hypocritical to advocate for one but not the other?
3. Should we abandon secularism and impose theocracy?

When a population has a high rate of serial monogamy - one man marrying several wives in succession - or polygamy there is usually a higher rate of young bachelors, who are the most destructive part of any population. Preserving the probability that young males become married and have families may be reason enough to outlaw either of those practices.

With regard to gay marriage, those people are not likely to marry and have families anyway. I see less reason to prevent that than polygamy or serial monogamy. In fact, gay marriage increases the marriage rate, and it may increase the likelihood that orphans or otherwise parentless children may be provided for in stable homes.

[Kuan]

Polygamy can have disastrous consequences. Yet the early mormon pioneers were able to instill it in society.

I think whether the consequences of either play a factor in whether it is legal or not, I dont see that as a case during the early Utah days. The laws passed were directed at the LDS church and for reasons I cannot figure out, confiscated church property and gave it to the U.S. government. I fail to see the relationship between property seizure and polygamy.

Now look at this from the Wikipedia page on polygamy.

The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it.

It wasnt if your were actually in a polygamous marriage, if you even voiced support of the mormon doctrine you could be prosecuted.

That said, I support the idea that neither the gay marriage issue or polygamy have any secular standing. The opposition to it is based upon religion.

[Furrowed Brow]

There is no reason either should be banned. However I'd add that no group or body should be allowed to promote one man many wife polygamy without also promoting one woman many husbands, or even more complex dynamics e.g. x is married to y who is married to z who is married to x. On reflection the folk who would really stand to gain are the lawyers. Which is a reason why not to.

[Kuan]

There is no reason either should be banned. However I'd add that no group or body should be allowed to promote one man many wife polygamy without also promoting one woman many husbands, or even more complex dynamics e.g. x is married to y who is married to z who is married to x. On reflection the folk who would really stand to gain are the lawyers. Which is a reason why not to.

I agree that no law should be made that promotes one man to many women but not vice versa. Yet no law should be made regarding the religious practices of those involved.

[nygreenguy]

There is no reason either should be banned. However I'd add that no group or body should be allowed to promote one man many wife polygamy without also promoting one woman many husbands, or even more complex dynamics e.g. x is married to y who is married to z who is married to x. On reflection the folk who would really stand to gain are the lawyers. Which is a reason why not to.

I disagree with the statement above. It should be legal, and thats it. Nothing more, nothing less. If a religion wants to promote heterosexual monogamy, fine. If they wish to promote polyandry, so be it.

[realthinker]

For those of you supporting polygamy, how do you see that playing out on a wide scale? How do you see the distribution of married versus unmarried? You think platonic love is going to determine who marries whom? What factors do you see determining who marries? What consequences can you imagine with widespread polygamy? What do you propose to do about all the underprivileged men who cannot marry because the ratio of unmarried women to unmarried men is going to be horribly out of balance?

[Kuan]

For those of you supporting polygamy, how do you see that playing out on a wide scale?

Well, its pretty obvious that our legal system would need to be changed if we dealt with polygamy.

How do you see the distribution of married versus unmarried?

I think the distribution might actually decrease, but I doubt that polygamy would become a lifestyle many followed.

You think platonic love is going to determine who marries whom?

Possibly, their are many reasons that some may enter into a polygamous marriage.

What factors do you see determining who marries? What consequences can you imagine with widespread polygamy? What do you propose to do about all the underprivileged men who cannot marry because the ratio of unmarried women to unmarried men is going to be horribly out of balance?

Those underprivlileged men might actually be able to get married still. I dont think single ratio would get out of wack to much either. Women can have more than one husband too.

All this said, I would never enter a polygamous marriage.

[Goat]

For those of you supporting polygamy, how do you see that playing out on a wide scale? How do you see the distribution of married versus unmarried? You think platonic love is going to determine who marries whom? What factors do you see determining who marries? What consequences can you imagine with widespread polygamy? What do you propose to do about all the underprivileged men who cannot marry because the ratio of unmarried women to unmarried men is going to be horribly out of balance?

Who said it is always going to be one man with lots of women?

I know of one relationship where one woman lived with two men for at least 10 years (I lost touch with them )

[dianaiad]

For those of you supporting polygamy, how do you see that playing out on a wide scale? How do you see the distribution of married versus unmarried? You think platonic love is going to determine who marries whom? What factors do you see determining who marries? What consequences can you imagine with widespread polygamy? What do you propose to do about all the underprivileged men who cannot marry because the ratio of unmarried women to unmarried men is going to be horribly out of balance?

Question: in a society where polygamy is practiced properly...that is, between people who have full and complete control of their own choices, and in which the talents and ability of women to choose their paths in life is respected, how dare you tell them that they cannot choose to marry someone who is married to someone else?

Isn't that coercion...you are so convinced that the only way to assure that young men have a chance to marry is to see to it that women are not allowed to make such a choice?

IN fact, such fears reflect a degree of patriarchal misogyny that boggles the mind, assuming as it does, first, that women would have absolutely no choice but to marry men with more than one wife already, and second, that men in general are so pathetic that few of them would be worth marrying; that is, fixing it so that the only way to get a woman is to fix the race.

Of course, the same arguments may be made for polyandry as for polygyny. The point is, there is no real reason that the government should give a hoot, except for the contractual agreements involved. It is the belief systems and culture that decide the morality of the thing....and my issue with gay marraige (or polygyny/polyandry..whatever) is that when government defines what marriage is, It WILL force religions to recognize that definition. It has done so. Still does. Remember the FLDS compound in Texas a couple of years back?

If the government wants to declare that in order to get the civil rights available to a specific type of relationship, fine. Make it 'civil unions can only be entered into by two consenting adults, and one contract must be disolved before another such contract can be entered into," fine. Not a problem.

However, if some church somewhere wants to decide that, civil unions aside, MARRIAGE can only be between a man and a woman, or a man and multiple women, or a woman and multiple men--or a group consisting of both men and women, g'head. They don't get the legal rights and protections, but they are married.

More importantly, for me, at least, someone who disagrees with them regarding what marriage is can't sue them.

..........a gay couple with a perfectly legal civil union, and a marriage solemnized by their own beliefs, cannot sue a fundamentalist Christian college and make that college allow them to live in married housing, for instance.....

And a state government cannot use a fraudlent call (one they already KNEW was fraudulent) as an excuse to raid a community, kidnap all the women and children, causing long lasting financial and emotional harm--all because they don't like the form of marriage being practiced by the group.

and yes, such a policy would also ensure that a gay couple with a civil union (and married according to their beliefs/religion) cannot be refused the same rights and protections that a heterosexual couple with a civil union receive. All of them...and the SAME set.