Polyamory - A Civil Rights Issue?

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,802
Likes
62,555
#1
Interesting article

Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? - The Daily Beast

Interesting too that the gay community is distancing themselves because they believe it will hurt their cause.

What is the basis for arguing that denying gay marriage is a civil rights violation but denying polyamorous marriage is not? (NOTE: I know some here have already stated that they don't see a difference).
 
#2
#2
I see no basis for denying one and not the other. Personally, I think both should be allowed and that the government should completely remove itself from marriages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
therealUT said:
I see no basis for denying one and not the other. Personally, I think both should be allowed and that the government should completely remove itself from marriages.
Click to expand...

Agree with the first - I can't see the logic of arguing one but not the other.

Agree with the second based on the third comment.

I do not see these as fundamental rights. More specifically, I don't believe benefits should be denied one group but not another (the civil union part) but see no reason for a government "blessing" of an agreement between parties (the "marriage" part).
 
#5
#5
Take government out of marriage altogether and it doesn't have a way to be hypocritical.
 
#6
#6
The government's sole basis for being involved in marriage is that, from time to time, members of the government seek to impose THEIR personal value structure on others.

The far right claims to be about freedom and liberty yet it consistently seeks to use the mechanism of government to impose its moral structure on everyone else.
 
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
The government's sole basis for being involved in marriage is that, from time to time, members of the government seek to impose THEIR personal value structure on others.

Huh?

The far right claims to be about freedom and liberty yet it consistently seeks to use the mechanism of government to impose its moral structure on everyone else.
Click to expand...

oh boy
 
#8
#8
Slippery slope. What's next, a man wants to marry his dog? You advocate beastiality now?

(just getting it out of the way)
 
#9
#9
utvolpj said:
Slippery slope. What's next, a man wants to marry his dog? You advocate beastiality now?

(just getting it out of the way)
Click to expand...

Yes/no - the dog argument make it a h

Existing definition: 2 people; one man, one woman

Gay argument: 2 people but gender irrelevant

Poly argument: why limit to 2 people?

Fido argument: why limit this to humans?

In the end it is societally defined.
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
Yes/no - the dog argument make it a h

Existing definition: 2 people; one man, one woman

Gay argument: 2 people but gender irrelevant

Poly argument: why limit to 2 people?

Fido argument: why limit this to humans?

In the end it is societally defined.
Click to expand...

Why is the 'existing definition' constrained to two people? According to a vast array of ancient texts, to include the Bible, the Koran, and many Greek texts, marriage was between one man and often times more than one woman.
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
Yes/no - the dog argument make it a h

Existing definition: 2 people; one man, one woman

Gay argument: 2 people but gender irrelevant

Poly argument: why limit to 2 people?

Fido argument: why limit this to humans?

In the end it is societally defined.
Click to expand...

I'm ok as long as the animal is able to give their consent. They also shouldn't be put down when they attack and kill their spouse
 
#14
#14
KiffinKiller said:
don't care. if you're loaded enough to afford it - good for you.
Click to expand...

Oh No, the devil is slipping, not thinking correctly.

Sharpen your horns KK, think about it.

Get you a 7 wifes, put them all to work. Instruct each one to bring their uncashed payroll checks home to you.

Promise each one that they get to spend one night each week with the devil. You will have all day to troll on VN and your choice of a lady each night.

Not a bad deal.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
Can you still discipline with a rolled up paper?
Click to expand...

hair hides bruises

as for the OP, wonder if the divorce rate would be lower in these cases. Have to be much more honest with someone when you're bringing her home to meet your wives
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
The government's sole basis for being involved in marriage is that, from time to time, members of the government seek to impose THEIR personal value structure on others.

The far right claims to be about freedom and liberty yet it consistently seeks to use the mechanism of government to impose its moral structure on everyone else.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:
 
#17
#17
utvolpj said:
Slippery slope. What's next, a man wants to marry his dog? You advocate beastiality now?

(just getting it out of the way)
Click to expand...

Marriage is a contract, and I don't think a dog can agree to a contract. If they could, then I would be all for it.

The main argument was, "If two people love each other, why should government get in the way?" I agree with the argument, and say the same when it's applied to more than two people.
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
oh boy
Click to expand...

Aside from the second part, I think he basically meant that existing marriage laws are essentially a government recognition of straight couples but not gay couples.

The big problem here is that there are many rights afforded to married couples having to do with property, information, visitation, custody etc. that the law concerns itself with. How do those get resolved if the government no longer plays a role in recognizing marriage of any sort?
 
#19
#19
milohimself said:
Aside from the second part, I think he basically meant that existing marriage laws are essentially a government recognition of straight couples but not gay couples.


The big problem here is that there are many rights afforded to married couples having to do with property, information, visitation, custody etc. that the law concerns itself with. How do those get resolved if the government no longer plays a role in recognizing marriage of any sort?
Click to expand...

Ideally all this could be handled with civil unions for any combination of people. The term marriage is symbolic.

Ultimately, people can decide if they want government to put a symbolic stamp of approval on relationships. Where "rights" come in are the second paragraph.
 
#20
#20
Agreed, I've always felt most of the debate was over semantics anyhow. A church can marry whoever they want to marry.

Homosexual couples have spent quite some time trying to be able to enjoy the same privileges heterosexual couples have, though.
 
#21
#21
therealUT said:
I see no basis for denying one and not the other. Personally, I think both should be allowed and that the government should completely remove itself from marriages.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't have to approve of someone's actions to support their right to exercise them, as long as I am not forced to sanction them in any way.

milohimself said:
Aside from the second part, I think he basically meant that existing marriage laws are essentially a government recognition of straight couples but not gay couples.

The big problem here is that there are many rights afforded to married couples having to do with property, information, visitation, custody etc. that the law concerns itself with. How do those get resolved if the government no longer plays a role in recognizing marriage of any sort?
Click to expand...

Basic contract law.
 
#22
#22
Mormons were labeled bigots for their opposition to gay marriage, but something most people don't understand is they feel very threatened by progressive thinking. Some of it has to do with prejudice, and close-mindedness, but a lot of it has to do with self-preservation.

Mormons hold their temple marriage ceremony very sacred, and their fear is/was that if gays are given equal rights to be married then they could conceivably sue the church for discrimination (for not marrying gays in the temple). Whether this is a valid concern or not, this is what they feared.

If legally we can distinguish it as a civil union, and religiously we can view it as a marriage, I think we eliminate a lot of the problem.
 
#23
#23
It's easy enough to define marriage as a legal contract between human beings.

..from a civil and government perspective.

Religions can define it however they want.
 
#25
#25
Gramps said:
Oh No, the devil is slipping, not thinking correctly.

Sharpen your horns KK, think about it.

Get you a 7 wifes, put them all to work. Instruct each one to bring their uncashed payroll checks home to you.

Promise each one that they get to spend one night each week with the devil. You will have all day to troll on VN and your choice of a lady each night.

Not a bad deal.
Click to expand...

you are my fav. I will let you sit next to me while I roast the good ones on a spit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top