Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The government got involved in issuing marriage licences because they wanted to protect the institution and provide special benefits to strengthen it. This was because of the social benefits this institute provides for society.

Nothing has changed. Gay people getting married has zero effect on "traditional families" and the social benefits they provide.

What are the negatives?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well wait, i think there are two different issues at play ...

i am for consenting adults marrying each other (ie ... everyone is marred to everyone, so if i had two wives, my wives would each have a husband and a wife)

i am against one party having multiple spouses but those spouses are not married to the others. like in bountiful, the wives arent married to each other right?

in one case, its a mutual relationship of love amongst each other. in the second case, its a power and control issue.

so seems there are different scenario's at play.

You just want to make sure you get husband-wife-wife threesomes.

Agreed though, that's an important distinction. As I see it, in the first, you have one man with multiple marriages. In the second, you have one man in one marriage that involves multiple partners.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well wait, i think there are two different issues at play ...

i am for consenting adults marrying each other (ie ... everyone is marred to everyone, so if i had two wives, my wives would each have a husband and a wife)

i am against one party having multiple spouses but those spouses are not married to the others. like in bountiful, the wives arent married to each other right?

in one case, its a mutual relationship of love amongst each other. in the second case, its a power and control issue.

so seems there are different scenario's at play.

The wives refer to each other as sisters. They actually spend more time together then with their husband. They share the chores and responsibility for the children. A pecking order usually occurs. Naturally the favourite wife has her husband's ear and therefore the most power. Often the first wife will organize the house while the newest wife gets more of the man's attention. There is strife.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by octothorp

You just want to make sure you get husband-wife-wife threesomes.

Agreed though, that's an important distinction. As I see it, in the first, you have one man with multiple marriages. In the second, you have one man in one marriage that involves multiple partners.

right ... one marriage license with multiple parties (be it 2m/1f or 3f/2m or 1m/2f) i dont have an issue with. (other than to think they are crazy! one wife is enough). frankly, i think the most effecient combinaton would be the 1m/2f, not because of the sexual fantasy cliche, but i think women enjoy the companionship of another women and i could see it working structurally. 2m/1f i think would be much less likely.

however, one man with many marriages ... not right, not equal and not borne out of love for each other.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well wait, i think there are two different issues at play ...

i am for consenting adults marrying each other (ie ... everyone is marred to everyone, so if i had two wives, my wives would each have a husband and a wife)

i am against one party having multiple spouses but those spouses are not married to the others. like in bountiful, the wives arent married to each other right?

in one case, its a mutual relationship of love amongst each other. in the second case, its a power and control issue.

so seems there are different scenario's at play.

That is a potentially extremely important point because it clearly distinguishes SSMs from polygamous unions without relying on a ground that also distinguishes them from heterosexual unions.

Basically, that allows for the argument that there is an imbalance of power between parties to a polygamous marriage which may have some detrimental effects. Not an argument you can raise in respect of heterosexual marriages, SSMs, or unions of multiple people who are all equally married to each other. So long as you find some detrimental effects to point to, the point you raise may provide a window for the courts to throw out polygamous marriages (and justifying that action under the Charter).

Just the kind of "out" the Supreme Court might want to rely upon, and a whole new twist on the discussion.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The wives refer to each other as sisters. They actually spend more time together then with their husband. They share the chores and responsibility for the children. A pecking order usually occurs. Naturally the favourite wife has her husband's ear and therefore the most power. Often the first wife will organize the house while the newest wife gets more of the man's attention. There is strife.

well this is exactly the type of marriage i would be opposed to. its not a loving relationship. the women are simply finding a structre to allow them to coexist, but they didnt choose each other.

its not the same as 3 people creating a life long love bond. isnt that what marriage is supposed to about?

[Calgaryborn]

[quote=RougeUnderoos;1623390]Nothing has changed. Gay people getting married has zero effect on "traditional families" and the social benefits they provide.

What are the negatives?[/quote]

We've already gone over this territory in another thread . This thread is about polygamy. After this post you can have the last word on this topic. I don't need it.

The answer to your question is that "special" ceases to be "special" when extended to a ever widening group. Same sex marriage widens the definition to any two people committed to living together and having sex. Polygamy would widen the definition further to include any number of people committed to living together and having sex. Someone next will ask why sex is even a part of the equation. If you are living with someone and holding things in common you should count too. The next group to complain will be the single who will rightly ask why the government is giving special treatment to all these people when they already benefit from the sharing of meals, utilities, ect. At that point I for one couldn't answer that question. Living together and having sex doesn't seem like a justification in itself for special treatment/considerations. What makes a committed heterosexual union of special interest to all Canadians isn't the shared address or the sex but, what that pairing has the potential of producing and raising. Mom and Dads make the next generation of Canadians and with our support are the best method of nurturing them on their journey to adulthood.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well this is exactly the type of marriage i would be opposed to. its not a loving relationship. the women are simply finding a structre to allow them to coexist, but they didnt choose each other.

its not the same as 3 people creating a life long love bond. isnt that what marriage is supposed to about?

But if you went up and asked these ladies they would tell you that they love each other deeply as sisters and don't know what they would do without each other. Again they don't see the power dynamic as the cause of the problem but, peoples behaviour within the group. They wouldn't tell you but, they would see their sister's behaviour or their husband's favoritism as the fault of something that should be working beautifully.

I don't believe you can have three people in an equal relationship. Humans are too competitive and needful.

On a related note: About 10 years ago Winston declared that women have sexual needs too and decreed that the men should regularly service all their wives and not just their favourite ones.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

We've already gone over this territory in another thread . This thread is about polygamy. After this post you can have the last word on this topic. I don't need it.

The answer to your question is that "special" ceases to be "special" when extended to a ever widening group.

We've gone over this before because the question has never been answered and it still hasn't.

"Ceasing to be special" is meaningless. It doesn't mean anything in reality. It only exists inside the head of people who make a conscious choice to feel "less special".

It is not a real negative.

That's what I'm after -- real negatives. Not self-esteem issues within the brains people who have a problem with gay marriage.

Examples of actual negatives could be:

Child abuse has increased because of same-sex marriage legislation
The birth rate has gone down because of same-sex marriage legislation
The divorce rate has gone up because of same-sex marriage legislation

Is there anything like that? Or is "ceasing to be special" the best you can do?

As for the continued talk of "mom and dad are the best for kids", has anyone even challenged that? I know I haven't.

[photon]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

That is a potentially extremely important point because it clearly distinguishes SSMs from polygamous unions without relying on a ground that also distinguishes them from heterosexual unions.

Basically, that allows for the argument that there is an imbalance of power between parties to a polygamous marriage which may have some detrimental effects. Not an argument you can raise in respect of heterosexual marriages, SSMs, or unions of multiple people who are all equally married to each other. So long as you find some detrimental effects to point to, the point you raise may provide a window for the courts to throw out polygamous marriages (and justifying that action under the Charter).

Just the kind of "out" the Supreme Court might want to rely upon, and a whole new twist on the discussion.

Lol new twist is right!

When I pictured an "ideal" of polygamy, I totally assumed everyone was doing everyone else, I guess I naturally assumed everyone else was too. That's why I was getting frustrated with everyone bringing up the bizarre religious compound type setups!

But that makes more sense if people were thinking A B C in a polygamous marriage. A does B and A does C but B and C just happen to live together. I was thinking nights could be AB, AC, BC, ABC, or A by themselves because BC went out.

Wow, such a simple but profound difference.

Couldn't they just stipulate then that in a polygamous marriage everyone has to be married to everyone else? Would that discourage the harem control style arrangements while still allowing the polyamorus arrangement?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nothing has changed. Gay people getting married has zero effect on "traditional families" and the social benefits they provide.

What are the negatives?

Problem I see with gay people getting married (and I don't want to bunch them together on this) but after they get married some seem to flaunt it. At a wedding this summer these 2 guys couldn't keep their hands off each other and they were quite proud of their "marriage"... quite a site to behold. Now instead of people saying "so and so" had a nice wedding all they think and talk about is the debacle of the 2 guys necking on the dance floor.
I also know 2 lesbians that within 1 minute of meeting them you'll be told.

Call me old school, call me a prick if you like, I don't really care but I liked it better when the gays lived in the closet. No matter how much we say we can handle it, "normal" society isn't ready for this yet.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by T@T

Problem I see with gay people getting married (and I don't want to bunch them together on this) but after they get married some seem to flaunt it. At a wedding this summer these 2 guys couldn't keep their hands off each other and they quite proud of their "marriage"... quite a site to behold. Now instead of people saying "so and so" had a nice wedding all they think and talk about is the debacle of the 2 guys necking on the dance floor

I know what you mean. I went to a wedding once and the same thing happened.


Except it was a heterosexual couple.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I know what you mean. I went to a wedding once and the same thing happened.


Except it was a heterosexual couple.

Could have been worst, it could have been an orgy...oh wait..

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by T@T

Could have been worst, it could have been an orgy...oh wait..

I think you missed the point of my post - or maybe I missed yours, who knows.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by T@T

Call me old school, call me a prick if you like, I don't really care but I liked it better when the gays lived in the closet. No matter how much we say we can handle it, "normal" society isn't ready for this yet.

No, I think it's just YOU and the minority that can't handle it. The majority or 'normal' if you want to call it seems to be okay with it as Canada was one of the first to legalize gay marriage.

I think you have a funny opinion on normal, or where you stand in the spectrum...

Besides, PDA isn't necessarily flaunting it. People have a right to that, especially at their own wedding! And I certainly have no problem seeing to males kiss or two females kiss.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

Lol new twist is right!

When I pictured an "ideal" of polygamy, I totally assumed everyone was doing everyone else, I guess I naturally assumed everyone else was too. That's why I was getting frustrated with everyone bringing up the bizarre religious compound type setups!

But that makes more sense if people were thinking A B C in a polygamous marriage. A does B and A does C but B and C just happen to live together. I was thinking nights could be AB, AC, BC, ABC, or A by themselves because BC went out.

Wow, such a simple but profound difference.

Couldn't they just stipulate then that in a polygamous marriage everyone has to be married to everyone else? Would that discourage the harem control style arrangements while still allowing the polyamorus arrangement?

That is the way I chose to assume polyamorus relationships are too. But, they can be any number of set ups or rules.

Some couples have open marriages and then come home to each other. Some couples have relationships that are SO open, they actually have other boyfriends or girlfriends, but still remain most committed to each other. Then there's full on polyamorus relationships where everyone lives together.

I was involved in a polyamorus relationship for a period of time. Me and two women who were bi-sexual. We all dated each other. The was no 'alpha-couple' so to speak. Sometimes it was AB, sometimes AC, and sometimes BC, just like you mentioned. Most often it was just ABC. Even not counting obvious sexual benefits, it was just great fun all going out together. That feeling that you have when you are really close to someone, well basically multiply it by two. It's almost imposible to explain but when you can achieve that level of trust it's a pretty special thing.

It took a lot of work, and even in the end it ended up failing, but it was certainly a very eye opening experience.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by T@T

Call me old school, call me a prick if you like, I don't really care but I liked it better when the gays lived in the closet. No matter how much we say we can handle it, "normal" society isn't ready for this yet.

So why did you go to a gay wedding then?

[photon]

*checks to see if this is the confessions thread*

Thanks for sharing that, I watched a documentary once about that kind of thing and thought it was pretty interesting. "That's gross" I think was my wife's comment, so no prospects there lol.

Documentary, or maybe just one of those Friday night shows that are all educational like but have boobies in them sometimes.

[Daradon]

^^^ Yeah, that's why I believe they can work, and they could be valuable, one just has to be so very careful and so very honest.

I mean, think about all the work it takes to keep a normal relationship going, then multiply that.

But biggest threat of all, like so many have mentioned on here, is just the possibility for abuse and control.

Of course, like any freedom, well meaning people shouldn't suffer because some people are jerks.

The laws and the system just has to make sure elements like cults, and 'religion' and such stay out of it and the people making the decisions are truly free people. Whatever that means.

[photon]

You have no idea how badly I want to change your title to "Has lived the dream!"