Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Irish Boy wrote:
It's only a red herring because gay rights supporters don't like the idea of icky Mormons having several wives. They have their own bigotries as well. They are just more socially acceptable.
That's idiotic on many levels. First- The idea that polygamy is a Mormon thing is a very outdated stereotype. Second - I don't think gay rights supporters care one way or the other about polygamists other than attempts by some to draw a non-existent link takes away from the more relevant arguments.
Why is it not relevant? Outside of the arbitrary rule that we think that marriage is a 1:1 relationship, every argument for gay marriage can be used for polygamy. By the way, like Irish Boy, I support gay marriage. Unlike Irish Boy, I struggle with how I can support that if I don't support polygamy between "consenting adults".
Let's say that I proposed a law. Gay marriage is made completely legal, but adultery by straight or gay people is punished by a year in jail. Having multiple partners becomes a felony. My guess is you'd think I'm a crazy religious guy who says "The Bible says cheating is a sin!". However, if someone thinks that all of that should be 100% legal, but we won't legally recognize the fact that a person may have two partners and laws are written on the books in many, if not all, states forbidding it. Why can't the definition of marriage continue to evolve to correct this obvious disconnect? A guy can sleep with whoever he wants, but he can't make it "official".
My thoughts have evolved a lot on this issue. Before, I thought that civil unions with full rights was the best option. However, I eventually said it wasn't worth the subtle difference and let them get married as it really doesn't effect me. I then took it one step further and now it seems to me the best option is to simply decouple government/insurance/other benefits from marriage. I'm married, but there is no reason why I should get better tax conditions than when I was single. There is no reason that a single friend shouldn't be allowed to name another person a beneficiary or get car insurance together or file taxes together if I can. If we took all that stuff out, then this whole debate wouldn't matter. Gay marriage, polygamy, straight marriage would all just become equal to wearing a high school lettermans jacket. The only thing the government would care about would be a name change. If someone wanted to marry 10 people they could because it wouldn't matter. If two men wanted to get married it wouldn't matter.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
