I really don't have any problem with gay marriage or polygamy. Traditional marriage isn't going to disappear because of the existence of either of them. It isn't a zero-sum game.

I think what will happen is we turn into a Dune-like future, with a small group of haves, and vast number of have-nots. There are real social/psychological/ economic advantages to a traditional marriage/upbringing, and all these other "arrangements" will be deeply crippling to their participants, and marginalize their offspring, leading to a growing underclass, and the end of real freedom and democracy.

Those fortunate enough to be born into and raised in a traditional marriage will be hugely advantaged, not unlike the children of upper middle class families today. The effect will accelerate over time.

Aldon: I agree, but if I were to make a prediction, it will eventually lead to more people making up their own vows in lue of a traditional marriage license (just my opinion).

Yeah, gay people and polygamists. Two groups that are probably not doing a whole lot of traditional marriages. What the anti-gay-marriage crowd loses when gay marriage is legalized is their "right" to inflict limitations on a group they hate. That's the zero-sum game they are obsessed with.

mark12A: I think what will happen is we turn into a Dune-like future, with a small group of haves, and vast number of have-nots. There are real social/psychological/ economic advantages to a traditional marriage/upbringing, and all these other "arrangements" will be deeply crippling to their participants, and marginalize their offspring, leading to a growing underclass, and the end of real freedom and democracy.

Whether you are being serious or not, there's really no point in continuing a conversation after the expression of an opinion like this.

Whether you are being serious or not, there's really no point in continuing a conversation after the expression of an opinion like this.

Oops! I've rocked your worldview, and now you flee in terror, leaving behind the above meaningless cheapshot....

/hopes the sand isn't too gritty when you stick your head in

mark12A: HI-larious watching Farkers twist themselves into knots explaining that Gay marriage is A-OK, but Polygamy is "Impractical", "Unwieldy" etc.

The line has been crossed. There is no logical basis to allow gay marriage, but not extend it to polygamy. None. You can argue that it's bad for the participants (reference the social/economic travails of societies with widespread polygamy) but that's, like, just you're opinion, man.

I argue that Gay marriage is a bad idea because of how it's going to screw up child rearing in our society, not because of any homophobia, yet I'm denounced as a bigot. Sorry, none of you can make an argument that justifies Gay Marriage, and opposes Polygamy.

Nothing left to do but let events unfold, and show through bitter, hard won, first hand experience that there's a reason that traditional marriage arose and existed in highly successful societies for hundreds of years....

Gay parents have shown in studies to provide happy, healthy households for their children, with less instances of child abuse than straight ones. Link Link

lilplatinum: verbaltoxin: Well there is one point that you can make against an incestuous relationship which I think is coherent. Most incest occurs because of prior child abuse by the parent. These are two people who literally shouldn't be around each other, much less in a sexual relationship as adults.

At this point you set a precedent that the government should dictate that we should only enter into healthy relationships. Sure, it is probably better that most incestuous relationships don't happen - but then again its probably better that a lot of people who get married don't get married in the first place.

The other incest argument about having kids who are at higher risks for birth defects seems compelling at first too, but then again a woman having kids after the age of 40 is putting that kid at a much higher risk of birth defects... should we ban old broads trying to selfishly beat their biological clock too?

There is a stronger argument for public health and welfare against incestuous marriages than an older woman having a child. Statistically yes, women are having kids later, but fewer of them are having kids in general, and they have fewer children at a time as well. Medical science is also catching up to the issue of children being born to older mothers. Also consider that though there is a higher risk for problems with later pregnancies, it doesn't happen every time.

As for incestuous procreation, there are the genetic risks (Though it can be shown that cousin marriage does not produce any higher instance of genetic defects than non-related couples), the much stronger social taboo compared to gay marriage, the suspect nature of the equality in a relationship when one partner is a parent and the other the child, the very likely history of child abuse that's going unpunished, and the very nature of what can be considered "consent." I think it can be argued that for the child's own good (Even if they are an adult), they should not be allowed to marry their parent.

Shaggy_C: simplicimus: That is correct. Marriage confers certain legal and tax benefits. Nothing intrinsic to religion.

The whole concept of marriage has its roots in religion. That's like claiming that a moment of silence is not religious.

That was it's roots, but now it's a civil contract that can or can not have a religious layer.
I put Mistletoe up for Christmas, that doesn't mean I'm remembering Baldur's death.

mark12A: Whether you are being serious or not, there's really no point in continuing a conversation after the expression of an opinion like this.

Oops! I've rocked your worldview, and now you flee in terror, leaving behind the above meaningless cheapshot....

/hopes the sand isn't too gritty when you stick your head in

You're not rocking anyone's worldview, you're trolling.

Aldon: A ban on polygamous or plural marriage is discriminatory against certain religions. Other societies have figured out legal matters concerning these types of marriages so your "too messy" argument won't hold water for long.

Other societies have managed the legal matters by making the male centre of the polygamist marriage the authority. If you could walk back women's rights, you could make the legalities simpler, I agree. Having it as an equal partnership is what makes it messy.

rynthetyn: Someone needs to explain the difference between "bisexual" and "polyamorous" to the author of TFA.

Not to mention the meaning of "equality".

mark12A: Oops! I've rocked your worldview

The existence of both trolls and homophobes on Fark hardly rocks my worldview.

Thoguh: Once you've decided the government can't define marriage...

Who's suggesting that?

Aldon: mrshowrules: Aldon: A ban on polygamous or plural marriage is discriminatory against certain religions. Other societies have figured out legal matters concerning these types of marriages so your "too messy" argument won't hold water for long.

Other societies have managed the legal matters by making the male centre of the polygamist marriage the authority. If you could walk back women's rights, you could make the legalities simpler, I agree. Having it as an equal partnership is what makes it messy.

I'm not saying it won't take some work...just that it is not a unreasonable hurdle to jump compared allowing discrimination.

I wonder if any farmer knows of a plural marriage society that is equal for both sexes?

It would requires whole new laws to be written just to deal with it. With same-sex marriage, you just had to re-write a couple of articles here and there. No big deal.

I have no issue with people living in a polygamist relationship or even forming complex social contracts reflecting it. I have issues with it being registered under an official government license as a marriage because of the complexity. I think it can/should be discriminated against in that sense. Not for the sake of discrimination but because of the complexity of the contract and the costs/resources required in resolving legal matters.

He didn't see a problem with group marriages...



...and neither do I.

Really, who cares who marries who? Other than busybodies who should stay out of other people's lives.

tony41454: Men DON'T marry men. It against Mother nature.

The Constitution is a one-sentence document that says "Don't do anything if it's against Mother nature."

Gay parents have shown in studies to provide happy, healthy households for their children, with less instances of child abuse than straight ones. Link Link

1. Gay marriage and child rearing hasn't been around long enough to form any reliable conclusions yet. And the social science community is SOAKED with politics, so it will be a while before any reliable, impartial studies emerge.

2. The studies that *have* been done have compared gay couple child rearing success to single mother households, NOT traditional marriage households. Even a gay couple household is superior to a single mother household for child rearing purposes.

Aldon: deadcrickets: And why can't I marry my sister!?

This is the argument that sucks... Because I would like to have a better argument.

Because it would harm children and our society to limit the gene pool mixing?

First, I doubt that incestuous marriage would be so common as to throw the next generation into jeopardy through reduced gene pool mixing. Second, I don't think genetic complications for offspring could be used to justify making it illegal, unless we already exclude couples from marrying if they share a recessive gene for a genetic impairment.

I don't see any reason to exclude incestuous marriage short of the fact that it's gross, and that's not a good enough reason.

tony41454: No one has a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution to get married. No one. You have the right to the "pursuit" of happiness, though it's no guarantee you'll find it. There are a lot of reasons people can't get married legally. Do we want a country where it's a "right" that someone can marry their sister? Men DON'T marry men. It against Mother nature.

Exactly. To the extent that marriage licenses are offered it is to the advantage of society to keep things running smoothly. Just like you register a will because death is certain and it complicated to deal with 20 wills showing up when someone dies. Now if you prevented a gay person from registering a will for no other reason than not liking gay people, that would be discrimination.

When the Founders created this country, they rightfully pointed for justification to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." They said that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those are the same founding fathers who believed that a black man only counted for 3/5th of a white man. It's the same founding fathers who felt that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sure, they created a fairly nice system of government, but I'll look elsewhere for guidance on social justice.