<p>Once again I find myself agreeing with Fountainsiren and Zoosermom - gay marriage yes, polygamy no. And I prefer to approach the question from a social policy/legal point of view, accepting that people’s religious beliefs differ and are not frequently subject to change through debate.</p>
<p>One big thing that marriage provides which is a societal good is support for a stable form of long-term adult “life partnership.” Going though life alone is hard to do. A couple can handle life’s vicissitudes a lot better than a single adult. And with two adults there’s always a clear default: If spouse A is sick or incapacitated, it’s spouse B’s job to take the responsibility for taking care of spouse A - medically, financially, etc. Rules governing inheritance, debt responsibility, division of assets and care of children on divorce, authority to make decisons for an incapacitated spouse, etc. have all been addressed and refined over the years. It works pretty well.</p>
<p>None of the “parade of horribles” trotted out as straw men by opponents of gay marriage fit that mold. Bestiality, polygamy, etc. don’t provide the same set of clear and helpful societal roles that marriage provides, and which are independent of the sex of the spouses. That’s why gay marriage has a rational positive societal value, and the things it “has to lead to” don’t, which is why things such as polygamy don’t follow in a logical or rational way from recognizing gay marriage.</p>
<p>Kluge thinks that a relationship with 2 people is best, while others think that 3 or more are better for many different reasons. Do we as a society just let everyone do what they think is best for them and give it our stamp of approval in the form of a marriage license?</p>
<p>zoosermom,
You already do pay for their kids whether of not their “marriage” is sanctioned by the government. The main difference will come when employers are required to provide benefits for everyone in these group “marriages” when one of them is employed.</p>
<p>Logosprincipal, I gave you a thoughtful analysis of why as a social policy matter government recognition of civil unions of two adults was valuable. You responded with sneers and bumper-sticker level heckling. Is it your intent to demonstrate that the basis for opposition to gay marriage can rise no higher than the level of “argument” you have advanced?</p>
<p>leanid: I had that cartharsis on here long ago. ;)</p>
<p>How about that nice family configuration down the street: the one with the two mommies, the biological daddy (of the mommies’ child) and the gay partner of the bio dad with their adopted child? They see my kids off at the bus stop every day! They all love each other and each other’s kids. Shouldn’t their “family” be recognized legally? (Hypothetical, but not far-fetched.)</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t even come at this from a moral or religious viewpoint (my life would be much simpler if I could). I don’t think the morals or “sins” of other people are my business in any way. However, I do firmly believe a marriage of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship, avoiding divorce unless absolutely necessary, is the best environment in which to raise children. I suppose that is where the connection to my religion fits in.</p>
<p>If children are not brought into the equation I don’t really care one bit what the adults down the street do. I don’t even care how “risky” their behavior is–that’s their choice. I do care when kids’ textbooks can’t mention gay sex as a cause of HIV because that fact may stigmitize AIDS as a “gay disease,” which is not helpful to the gay activist agenda. When the agenda (sorry to use that word but that is what it is) touches on things I believe harm the welfare of children and teens, that’s when I say: back off!</p>
<p>Has anyone noticed that, in the current situation in which only heterosexual marriage is legal, there is bestiality and polygamy? Perhaps it is linked to heterosexual marriage (along with war, domestic violence, child abuse, and the baggage retrieval system they’ve got at Heathrow?)</p>
<p>Glad to see Laura Bush recognizing there is a better idea.</p>
<p>No one should be shamed or bullied into accepting gay marriage, or embarrassed about being against it–no matter what their reasons, or where their reasons lie on the spectrum of disapproval.</p>
<p>Polyamory and polygamy are two separate things. I notice people keep using the term polygamy (which implies a man and women, and not polyamory, which can be any configuration of men or women). Actually, it is polyamory, not polygamy which is the issue. The hypothetical I used above is one example. If you think divorce is “messy” now, try visualizing the consequences for kids who are in the midst of a divorce between one the those two couples.</p>
<p>HH:
I must disagree. Bigotted, homophobic, hateful people should be embarassed and shamed. People with ‘rational’ reasons should just be enlightened.</p>
<p>Whatever, gla: you’re entitled to your opinion.
However, people are not <em>necessarily</em> bigoted or homophobic or hateful if they are against gay marriage.</p>
<p>Kluge,
I’m guilty of “sneers” & “heckling” because I said that there are other people who disagree with your assessment that 2 people in a “marriage” is ideal?</p>
<p>In most cultures where polygamy is common, all partners are considered to be married to one another. In other words, Wife #1 has a husband, but she also has a “co-wife” or “sister-wife” in Wife #2. Thus, the women are married to persons of the same sex. If the husband dies, the wives don’t become single en masse, and they cannot simply walk away; they are all still bound to one another.</p>
<p>At any rate, one thing at a time. As we have observed with gay marriage, the legal principles created in one situation are often not applied to a new situation for decades. It’s been 40 years since Loving v. Virginia, and we just now got around to a Supreme Court decision saying gay sex can’t be criminalized – we’re not even close to a gay-marriage Loving equivalent. It’ll be a LONG time before the polygamy question is getting a serious hearing in the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Isn’t the definition of bigotry is to to aribitrarily define one group of people as immoral, and to forbid them certain freedoms the rest of us have?</p>
<p>If you were talking about a group of serial killers or thieves, you could “reasonably” prevent them from having the freedoms the rest of us have. But to condemn someone because of your personal prejudices/belief system is bigotry.</p>
<p>As for the crazy too-many-mommies plus too-many-daddies–sorry, I know <em>tons</em> and <em>tons</em> of them from attending school activities and weddings–the families following divorce. It can be okay for the kids or terrible. Just can’t understand why the moral police on here aren’t more up in arms about that.</p>
<p>Its actually a known fact that it is better for children to be raised by a family of one father and one mother. I dont see how anyone can possibly dispute that having a male and female parent is no better than two parents of the same sex. Ask any doctor and he will tell you the same thing</p>
<p>Clearly, as you continue to use this ignorant doggerel against those who, like HH and Logos, have rational and reasonable differences with you and your hard-ase kind.</p>
<p>My position has been iterated and reiterated in this forum. This does not, however, prevent me from seeing the absolutely hateful speech of some here, and then calling it what it is: a moronic substitute for thought.</p>
<p>Your rhetoric is uncalled for, and what’s more, completely unproductive to the cause you claim to champion; I would be more inclined to say that your cause is your dogma not the substance of any well thought out argument.</p>
<p>People who oppose gay marriage do not devolve into “homophobes” simply because they disagree with your cause. Neither do those who oppose polygamy become “bigots”. </p>
<p>If you have a rational argument, make it. If you’ve given any original thought to this issue share it…otherwise, get off it!</p>
<p>You know what there’s loads and loads of empirical data about? The fact that white parents, on average, raise healthier children with higher IQ’s than black parents with the same income. The white kids are more likely to finish high school, less likely to wind up in jail, less likely to be obese, less likely to have asthma or diabetes, etc. etc. The evidence is overwhelming that you’re better off, in all kinds of important ways that are easy to measure, being born a white kid in a white family.</p>
<p>Is this a good justification for limiting marriage to white people?</p>
<p>Actually, it is a good argument for painting all Black folks, and making them appear as something they are not. (That has essentially been the strategy used for gay folks.)</p>
<p>“People who oppose gay marriage do not devolve into “homophobes” simply because they disagree with your cause.”</p>
<p>They’ve usually been homophobes before gay marriage even came up. Or so has been my experience. Glad this isn’t true of Condi and Laura.</p>
<p>Speaking of bigotry and hate, there is an important difference between hate and bias against what a group REPRESENTS and hate and bias against an individual.</p>
<p>If anyone is trying to portray me as a bigot, know this: that I am accepting, or at least tolerant, of all (I hope) individuals I may meet and know, but I will not be cajoled or bullied into tolerating individual or group actions which I feel are morally repugnant.</p>