A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

polygamy often results in the subjugation of women as is common with fundamentalist LDS camps and with fundamentalist Islam which often normalizes or even enshrines such subjugation behind traditional or religious reasons.

Often, but not necessarily. Many straight marriages result in something simmilar.

state benefits, such as tax deduction for dependents.

It is not beyond the wit of man to reorganise such things.

[Hutch Hogan]

Often, but not necessarily. Many straight marriages result in something simmilar.

You're not picking up on the type of institutionalized subjugation that I'm talking about.  i.e. in an LDS marriage a woman receives a secret name and a man receives a secret name.  The man learns the secret name of the wife, but not vice-versa and no wife of the man can enter heaven until he dies and calls their name to join him with his other wives. 

It is not beyond the wit of man to reorganise such things.

The fact that it is a debate at all demonstrates that the government is witless. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You're not picking up on the type of institutionalized subjugation that I'm talking about.  i.e. in an LDS marriage a woman receives a secret name and a man receives a secret name.  The man learns the secret name of the wife, but not vice-versa and no wife of the man can enter heaven until he dies and calls their name to join him with his other wives. 

 

I'm well aware of the type of subjugation you are referring to, but you cannot prove that polygamy necessarily equals subjugation

The fact that it is a debate at all demonstrates that the government is witless.

 

Emotional appeals to perceived government incompetence are not arguments. It is possible to organise these things.

[Hutch Hogan]

Emotional appeals to perceived government incompetence are not arguments. It is possible to organise these things.

It was a joke. Obviously. 

I'm well aware of the type of subjugation you are referring to, but you cannot prove that polygamy necessarily equals subjugation

The fact that polygamy means polygyny and only happens as polyandry upon occasion would point to a correlation with devaluing women in comparison with men, polygamy being a symptom as such.  

Sorry for the post alignment, but can't clear the formatting. 

Emotional appeals to perceived government incompetence are not arguments. It is possible to organise these things.

It was a joke. Obviously. 

I'm well aware of the type of subjugation you are referring to, but you cannot prove that polygamy necessarily equals subjugation

The fact that polygamy means polygyny and only happens as polyandry upon occasion would point to a correlation with devaluing women in comparison with men, polygamy being a symptom as such.  

Sorry for the post alignment, but can't clear the formatting. 

[Lori S.]

"If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?"

It doesn't only have to do with romantic love.  It also has to do with social stability, especially a stable environment in which to raise children.  Gay marriage contributes to both of those, because there are and always will be gay people, and there are and always will be gay people who have children.

That said, it's pretty easy to see why polygamy is an issue.  Marriage is about the conferral of rights and responsibilities among two people.  It's a two-person contract.  So, for example, if I die, my husband gets my stuff.  If he dies, I am in charge of the kids and their upbringing.  If I get sick, he gets to make medical decisions for me.  And on and on.  If there were more people in our relationship, these very straightforward assignations of rights/responsibilities would become complicated.  If my husband had three wives, who would get what portion of his stuff when he died?  If I had six husbands, which would make my medical decisions should I be incapacitated?

As to incest, we know that inbreeding leads to genetic problems.  Plus, marriage is about the formation of families, and blood relatives are already family.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It doesn't only have to do with romantic love.  It also has to do with social stability, especially a stable environment in which to raise children.  Gay marriage contributes to both of those, because there are and always will be gay people, and there are and always will be gay people who have children.

Are you suggesting that polygamous relationships are necessarily socially/parentally unstable. And I should point out that every single study conducted on the parenting quality of homosexual relationships have been routinely academically undermined by poor sampling.

That said, it's pretty easy to see why polygamy is an issue.  Marriage is about the conferral of rights and responsibilities among two people.  It's a two-person contract.  So, for example, if I die, my husband gets my stuff.  If he dies, I am in charge of the kids and their upbringing.  If I get sick, he gets to make medical decisions for me.  And on and on.  If there were more people in our relationship, these very straightforward assignations of rights/responsibilities would become complicated.  If my husband had three wives, who would get what portion of his stuff when he died?  If I had six husbands, which would make my medical decisions should I be incapacitated?

Polygamous cultures have existed for centuries. I doubt very much that these questions are unresolvable, otherwise monogamous marriage would be more universal. All that would be required is simply a more complex legal contract.

As to incest, we know that inbreeding leads to genetic problems.

Firstly, this is, to a certian extent, a myth. That is, it is a myth that it is a problem most of the time. Brother/Sister incest is not genetically dangerous for any theortical offspring unless it moves into third/fourth generation of the same practice. However parent/child incest is more genetically problematic. Secondly though, would you object then to sterile incestous marriage?

 

Plus, marriage is about the formation of families, and blood relatives are already family.

If you are objecting to incestuous couples inability to create a procreative family, why would you support homosexual marriage, given that being married gives them no more ability to have children than when they were single.

[Josh Weeden]

The problem with this type of argument is when you flip it on its head....you are saying that loving consensual adults should not be allowed to be married (what ever that freaking means anyway) in case sibling marry as a result?

Do you honestly have an issue with gay marriage or are you just arguing the toss? I am just curious is all if you do then please justify your reasons for not wanting gay marriage to become legal otherwise you role as Devils Advocate is just being unnecessarily contentious and detracting from the issue for the sake of placating your ego.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The problem with this type of argument is when you flip it on its head....you are saying that loving consensual adults should not be allowed to be married (what ever that freaking means anyway) in case sibling marry as a result?

 

I am saying that this argument does not work, because it allows other things that we currently do not regard as acceptable. So either we change, and regard those things as acceptable, or we accept that our reasoning is flawed.

[Josh Weeden]

Ey but here's the rub at the moment we have members of the gay community crying out for equal rights in large enough volume for their voices to be heard globally. Hence the action to change our precepts of marriage is under question not for the sake of the logical argument but that PEOPLE want it to change. This is illogical as we are PEOPLE and a certain amount of our decision making is emotional and right now society FEELS that gay marriage should be legal. When the community of incestuous couples or polygamists start demanding equal rights then maybe society will change again but for the time being this is the change which is being called for so let us respect it for what it is an equalisation of civil liberties to a large percentage of society.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Ey but here's the rub at the moment we have members of the gay community crying out for equal rights in large enough volume for their voices to be heard globally. Hence the action to change our precepts of marriage is under question not for the sake of the logical argument but that PEOPLE want it to change

 

The problem with this argument is that there are lots of things that people want to do, or want the government to do for them, that the government doesn't do. Why? Because it costs the government resources, and the government has a finite amount of resources.
 Gay marriage would cost the government far more resources than hetrosexual marriage, because the rate of return on the investment (children) is much much lower due to natural inability. And since the question of whether marriage for homosexuals can be considered a human right is up for considerable debate, unless a compelling argument can be made, action should not be taken.

[Josh Weeden]

AH but who knows perhaps the legalisation of gay marriage might put a dent in the numbers of children in orphanages throughout the world. Also following your logic to its end... destroy any legal ramifications of marriage for everybody then governments throughout the world can save billions. Perhaps if we all registered a legal next of kin rather than a marriage ceremony deciding legal status then a more ordered and fair might just rise from the ashes

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

AH but who knows perhaps the legalisation of gay marriage might put a dent in the numbers of children in orphanages throughout the world.

No, it won't because the gay couples are not significantly more able to adopt together than they were independently. 

Also following your logic to its end... destroy any legal ramifications of marriage for everybody then governments throughout the world can save billions.

 

No, it wouldn't. From the state's POV the reasoning behind marriage is that it is an investment. IE It is there to encourage the procreation of children, which then supports the long term viability of the state.