Why is ok to accept gay marriage, but be against polygamy or marriage based on consanguinity............?

by **colfre** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:48 pm

Ive asked this type of question before in my recent post but i just want to broaden the topic out a little more. Recently, we are seeing a trend to legalize Gay Marriage, in order to as Gay Rights advocates say, promote equality in marriage.

Now I ask this honestly speaking, and with no offense to anyone. If your going to strike down laws that bar Gay Marriage, shouldn't you also campaign to strike down laws against polygamous marriages, or laws against marriage between siblings(as examples) if your for marriage equality?

In case of polygamy, someone can easily claim both marriage and religious discrimination. This is what i mean. Islam and Mormonism for instance sanctions polygamy as part of there religion. Currently, polygamy is illegal, so someone who is a muslim or who is a mormon, and wants to enter into a consenting polygamous marriage can claim religious discrimination legally speaking, because the law is barring them from entering into a marriage that is sanctioned by their religion.

A similar case can be made by people who are brother and sister, or cousins. My personal view as i state before is marriage should ideally be between a man and a woman. But i dont believe in imposing my views on other people, because that is just a waste of time and breath. And i think the so called campaigners for "Marriage Equality" ought to be a little more consistent as well. You cant say your for Gay marriage, but against polygamous marriages, or marriages between brothers and sisters, or cousins.

Thats why(as ive suggested many times on this post) that the government role in marriage should be scrapped completely. Marriage as defined is a contract between 2 people, and i dont see why the government should be involved. If the government is involved in marriage, your going to end up with a never ending debate as to which marriages are considered legitimate, and which arent

Once the government decides which marriages are valid and invalid, your always going to have minority groups that raise the issue of marriage discrimination simply from the fact that the government deciding which marriages are legitimate or not. So instead of ending with such a tedious and tiresome situation like that, just get rid of the governments role in it all. Now, this doesn't have to be done all at once, but it can be done incrementally, but i think over the long run its a much better idea than what we have currently

by **aingeni** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:50 pm

Any Mormon who has a marriage with more than one wife is excommunicated, no exceptions whatsoever.

Have you been living under a rock or something???

That has been so for over 120 years.

http://Mormon.org Chat.

God bless.

by **golding** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:54 pm

In my book, as a rational and reflective gay man, polygamy and consanguineous marriages ARE justified by the same logic which justifies gay marriage. I see nothing whatever wrong with any free and responsible person's marrying whomsoever, and howeversomany, of other free and responsible persons as he or she wishes. The presumed detrimental effects to offspring of consanguinity I know enough about the science of genetics to know them to be unfounded, unscientific popular foolishness and absolutely non-existent. I know, furthermore, enough about the actual nature of man, from the study of evolution and anthropology, to be able to pronounce polygamy to be the normal and ordinary form of marital union among members of our species.

by **bean** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:03 pm

In my book, as a rational and reflective gay man, polygamy and consanguineous marriages ARE justified by the same logic which justifies gay marriage. I see nothing whatever wrong with any free and responsible person's marrying whomsoever, and howeversomany, of other free and responsible persons as he or she wishes. The presumed detrimental effects to offspring of consanguinity I know enough about the science of genetics to know them to be unfounded, unscientific popular foolishness and absolutely non-existent. I know, furthermore, enough about the actual nature of man, from the study of evolution and anthropology, to be able to pronounce polygamy to be the normal and ordinary form of marital union among members of our species.

I am a right-of-center, straight white male who happens to believe in God (but not religion). By most stereotypes I should be against gay marriage. But I'm not. One of a "real" Conservatives beliefs is that there should be as little government interference in our personal lives as possible, and in this case I don't think the government has any business telling someone who they can or cannot marry, as long as it is between consenting adults. However, because of our separation of Church and State, I don't believe churches should be forced to conduct gay marriages if they are opposed to them. People can get married (and not just some sort of civil contract) in civil ceremonies as the alternative.

Consequently, I am also not opposed to polygamy, but now we are getting into some practical matters. Specifically society is used to dealing with situations of mortality, insurance, Social Security and etc. with only one spouse. Introducing multiple spouses into that equation would create problems, particularly in a case where an employee may marry a second, third or fourth spouse simply to get them covered on their insurance. I don't think that is fair to the other payers in the plan, and if polygamy were to become legally acceptable, I think we'd have to adopt some monetary and benefit restrictions on it.

In terms of incestual relationships...well, "consenting adults" means "consenting adults," as much as I may be repelled by the idea.

by **camdin90** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:10 pm

This is why allowing gay marriage can open up a can of worms. Not just polygamy, but bestiality (who's to argue whether the animal is enjoying it), child molestation (Islam founder and 9-year old bride), sex slave (who's to say it's none of your business if it's a consenting slave relationship or a business contract and no one gets physically hurt?), necrophilia (dead person has no right), or even non-living objects (objects don't have feelings.)

The whole concept of marriage was created to take care of the children in a stable environment, which statistics already prove many times that a stable marriage within a heterosexual couple is the best environment for child-rearing. It's a pity that many heterosexual marriages are not that stable (mostly due to selfishness induced by the culture) and many couples can't bear a child. But that doesn't mean it is invalid and we should allow other forms as marriage. We should instead strive to improve the existing marriage.

by **luther** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:12 pm

Ammon likes to start trouble and chewed me out also for speaking the truth about Mormons,charming fellow isn't he?

Advertisments: