Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Lead to Polygamous Marriage. Really?

[Bill Mattocks]

One of the arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage has been that it opens the floodgates to changing the definition of marriage to include all sorts of things, including polygamous marriage. This has routinely been pooh-poohed by proponents of same-sex marriage, who insist that same-sex marriage does not create a 'slippery slope' condition and won't lead to any such thing.

I think the facts are becoming clear. This is about Canada - I don't think it will be long before similar court cases appear in the USA...

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31673

Marriage in Canada Up For Grabs

By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, FEB. 6, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Polygamy should be allowed as part of the exercise of religious freedom, according to a splinter Mormon group in Canada.
Over the last few months British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman has been hearing arguments about whether polygamy should be legal. According to the Bountiful community of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms means that as part of their religious rights men should be allowed multiple wives.

It's the same with gun control; every time a regulation is insisted upon, the promise is that there will be no further demands. Every time, this promise doesn't last long. Same-sex marriage in Canada; and now polygamy? What's next? And let's not pretend there won't be a 'next'. Of course there will. Any such statement is silly on its face.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is one of those slippery slopes, where I say grab the sled and go. For me, it's a question of liberty. Other then religious reasons, why would the government make a law against this? If we live in a secular society, what right does anyone have to force people not to do this? As far as families are concerned, having more adults around in committed relationships has the potential to bring many benefits.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is one of those slippery slopes, where I say grab the sled and go. For me, it's a question of liberty. Other then religious reasons, why would the government make a law against this? If we live in a secular society, what right does anyone have to force people not to do this? As far as families are concerned, having more adults around in committed relationships has the potential to bring many benefits.

Did you read the article? There are many reasons for a government to restrict polygamous marriage, especially in the sense being asked by the LDS church in Canada. Multiple underage wives of elderly men, neglected children, water torture as part of the rituals of raising the children, and young males run out of the community as potential competitors, among many others.

Why? There is lots of why here.

 

[Kacey]

It can only be hoped that Canada, which perhaps not coincidentally has legalized same-sex marriage, will not introduce by judicial fiat a further blow to marriage by allowing the exploitation of women and children.

Am I missing something here? How does one lead to another? Or is this just the bias of the reporter?

The key issue in this article appears to center around the abuse of marriage partners and children in a particular religious sect that is being allowed to violate a law - and whose members are not being prosecuted for polygamy for fear of lawsuit.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Am I missing something here? How does one lead to another? Or is this just the bias of the reporter?

The key issue in this article appears to center around the abuse of marriage partners and children in a particular religious sect that is being allowed to violate a law - and whose members are not being prosecuted for polygamy for fear of lawsuit.

The legalization of same-sex marriage opened the door by damaging the argument for traditional definitions of marriage. Note what was said in court in the government's behalf:

John Witte, Jr., the director of the Law and Religion Center at Emory University testified that there is a consistent, 2,500-year tradition of marriage as the monogamous union of two people, according to a report in the Jan. 10 edition of the Vancouver Sun.

Except that argument has holes in it, and the defense is going to tear it apart. There is no 2,500 year tradition of marriage between TWO PEOPLE. There is a 2,500 year tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. By allowing redefinition of what marriage traditionally is, the government has opened the door to allow any definition of marriage to be put forward. If not one man and one woman, then why NOT more than one man and a woman?

John Witte, Jr., is stuck. He has to carefully word his statement and it is NOT correct. The defense will see that and rip him a new one. The fact that the Canadian government has changed what marriage is means that all bets are off.

 

[Makalakumu]

Did you read the article? There are many reasons for a government to restrict polygamous marriage, especially in the sense being asked by the LDS church in Canada. Multiple underage wives of elderly men, neglected children, water torture as part of the rituals of raising the children, and young males run out of the community as potential competitors, among many others.

Why? There is lots of why here.

I read the article and all of those things could happen in traditional marriage as well. What reason is there to expect that polygamous marriage would affect any change? Is there any scientific data on this question anywhere? I haven't seen it. For all of the anecdotal horror stories, I can show you examples of polygamous marriages that work out just fine. The biggest stress in these families lives is that the government made the lifestyle illegal.

Isn't it like any other issue related to personal liberty, like smoking, drinking, helmets, guns, there are pros and cons, but what right does the government have to tell the individual they cannot do this?

 

[granfire]

Did you read the article? There are many reasons for a government to restrict polygamous marriage, especially in the sense being asked by the LDS church in Canada. Multiple underage wives of elderly men, neglected children, water torture as part of the rituals of raising the children, and young males run out of the community as potential competitors, among many others.

Why? There is lots of why here.

Same Sex marriage is also the gateway drug to marrying your dog or ficus, right?

However, there have been guidelines about who can legally enter into a marriage contract (which the holy institution really is: a legal contract). That does generally exclude the underage and otherwise (mentally) infirm.

Also, there are laws on the books that do deal with torture and abuse. It's not like the ***** does not already happen. So now it happens to not legally married women who coinhabbit with other women and an old man.

That is kind of like saying because people drive drunk, while texting or sleepy we outlaw driving.

I am assuming the polygamy clause would also work in reverse....though for the life of me I don't know why a woman would want more than one husband on a continuous basis...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I read the article and all of those things could happen in traditional marriage as well. What reason is there to expect that polygamous marriage would affect any change? Is there any scientific data on this question anywhere? I haven't seen it.

If you read the article and did not see the accusations, then you did not want to see them. In the USA (and, I presume, Canada), the institution of Polygamy is tied to a particular religious belief; what goes with one, goes with the other. I have not heard of waterboarding infants in non-polygamous marriages; apparently this is a ritual of this particular sect. Is it part of the definition of polygamy? No, but it appears to be inextricably intertwined with the groups that practice the religion and the institution of polygamy. It is disingenuous to pretend that they are not therefore linked.

As to scientific data; I don't have any, and I have no idea if there is any. However, if having scientific proof of damage is required to make something illegal, then we may as well legalize marriage between people and household pets; I haven't seen any scientific data showing the damage done to society on that, either.

The point is this - when a government changes the definition of marriage, then it opens the door to additional modifications. This was raised as a potential issue by those against same-sex marriage and it was laughed at by those who favored same-sex marriage. Yet here we are. This cannot be denied; it's fact. First the one, then the other. AS PREDICTED. Please tell me that same-sex marriage proponents did NOT argue that polygamy would not be on the table just because same-sex marriage was permitted. I can go through the threads and pull out line and freaking verse. No, it won't happen, we were assured. Yet ta-da, here it is.

What it does is make same-sex marriage proponents who insisted that same-sex marriage would not lead to challenges on marriage from groups such as polygamists mistaken at best; at worst, it makes them liars.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I keep saying it over and over..
Government needs to get the hell out of marriage business all together and leave it to reigious entities to deal with marriage for their members as they see fit.

Instead government needs to serparate themselves from the religious aspects associated with marriage, and make it simply about legal issues, benefits for two or more people sharing a home and working towards a common goal, parents of children, and legal responsibilities to children, and other people, tax breaks, etc.etc.

the rest of this is nonsense.
Marriage to me is never going to be anything other then what my spiritual viewpoint is... a man and a woman who join in the desire to raise a family.
homosexuals can have their version of marriage, polygamists can have theirs, hollywood can have theirs..just don't make me pay for it, and don't make me be a part of it if I dont agree with it. do whatever the hell you want with your marriage as long as you are not breaking laws like child abuse, or any other criminal activity.

 

[Makalakumu]

There is no 2,500 year tradition of marriage between TWO PEOPLE. There is a 2,500 year tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. By allowing redefinition of what marriage traditionally is, the government has opened the door to allow any definition of marriage to be put forward. If not one man and one woman, then why NOT more than one man and a woman?

This argument is fallacious. You could argue anything based of the fact that it's tradition. I could argue the fact that polygamous has thousands of years tradition and is therefore viable and that would be fallacious as well.

Is there anything that exists in polygamous marriages that does not exist in traditional marriage (other then the potential for a regular threesome ) that poses such a huge danger to society that it needs to be prohibited?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Same Sex marriage is also the gateway drug to marrying your dog or ficus, right?

I'm sorry, that argument is no longer available to you. You can't argue that the slippery slope doesn't exist, because there it is right in front of you.

When the traditional definition of marriage is changed, it opens the door to further challenges. The main argument is then "if that's now OK based on changing standards, then why can't this be changed also?"

So no, same-sex marriage doesn't lead to polygamous marriage; the people who want to marry same-sex are not the same people who want to marry multiple spouses, generally. However, when marriage remained what it always had been, one man and one woman, then it was simple to defeat any challenges to it - it is what it is, and changing societal values don't change the basis of our society (the family).

Change it one time, and you open the door to changing it over and over again.

The institution of marriage will shortly come to mean nothing at all. Society will be damaged. And yes, it's the fault of the same-sex marriage proponents.

Slippery slope proven. It's not possible to argue it anymore, this is proof that the accusations this would happen were completely accurate.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This argument is fallacious. You could argue anything based of the fact that it's tradition. I could argue the fact that polygamous has thousands of years tradition and is therefore viable and that would be fallacious as well.

Is there anything that exists in polygamous marriages that does not exist in traditional marriage (other then the potential for a regular threesome ) that poses such a huge danger to society that it needs to be prohibited?

Our society is based upon the family. Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children. Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.

There is no other argument possible. Our society is not based on polygamous marriages. That's not speculation, that's fact.

In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement. I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage. Yet it has. They were wrong - at best. At worst, they're liars. The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me. You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it. The same-sex marriage proponents lied.

 

[Makalakumu]

If you read the article and did not see the accusations, then you did not want to see them. In the USA (and, I presume, Canada), the institution of Polygamy is tied to a particular religious belief; what goes with one, goes with the other. I have not heard of waterboarding infants in non-polygamous marriages; apparently this is a ritual of this particular sect. Is it part of the definition of polygamy? No, but it appears to be inextricably intertwined with the groups that practice the religion and the institution of polygamy. It is disingenuous to pretend that they are not therefore linked.

I agree that this sect is practicing some destructive family dynamics, but it is fallacious to say these are tied to polygamy. The existence of polygamous families who do not do these things proves this. I can understand if a society wants to prohibit child marriages, "waterboarding" (now that's some inflammatory language LOL) infants, and other forms of violence. However, I can see no reason to ban polygamy itself. The same argument for gay marriages DOES apply here. Grab your sled and hit the slopes for personal liberty!

 

[granfire]

I'm sorry, that argument is no longer available to you. You can't argue that the slippery slope doesn't exist, because there it is right in front of you.

When the traditional definition of marriage is changed, it opens the door to further challenges. The main argument is then "if that's now OK based on changing standards, then why can't this be changed also?"

So no, same-sex marriage doesn't lead to polygamous marriage; the people who want to marry same-sex are not the same people who want to marry multiple spouses, generally. However, when marriage remained what it always had been, one man and one woman, then it was simple to defeat any challenges to it - it is what it is, and changing societal values don't change the basis of our society (the family).

Change it one time, and you open the door to changing it over and over again.

The institution of marriage will shortly come to mean nothing at all. Society will be damaged. And yes, it's the fault of the same-sex marriage proponents.

Slippery slope proven. It's not possible to argue it anymore, this is proof that the accusations this would happen were completely accurate.

The institution of marriage is a recent thing:
It is a means of the patriach to somewhat reassure the spawn he hunts to feed is the fruit of his loin. Nothing more.

It has not been a religious thing for all that long either. Previous to the reformation marriage was the means to raise kids. To provide for old age etc...it's a bit complexer than that, but not by much. Shucks, the notion that you actually have to like your partner is a new one. Somewhere born in the Victorian/romantic era of the 19th century.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree that this sect is practicing some destructive family dynamics, but it is fallacious to say these are tied to polygamy. The existence of polygamous families who do not do these things proves this. I can understand if a society wants to prohibit child marriages, "waterboarding" (now that's some inflammatory language LOL) infants, and other forms of violence. However, I can see no reason to ban polygamy itself. The same argument for gay marriages DOES apply here. Grab your sled and hit the slopes for personal liberty!

Just don't want to address my initial point, do you?

Same-sex marriage proponents argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage legalization. Yet here we are. And you won't even acknowledge it. I think I've made it sufficiently clear; the same-sex marriage proponents not only lied; but now they support polygamous marriage as well. No slippery slope, they said. They lied.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The institution of marriage is a recent thing:
It is a means of the patriach to somewhat reassure the spawn he hunts to feed is the fruit of his loin. Nothing more.

Not in the history of western society. Our shared society is of societies based on collections of families, and those families are made up of the so-called 'nuclear family.' Mother, father, children.

Revisionist historical attempts aside, that is fact. Inarguable. It is what it is, you cannot redefine history.

It has not been a religious thing for all that long either. Previous to the reformation marriage was the means to raise kids. To provide for old age etc...it's a bit complexer than that, but not by much. Shucks, the notion that you actually have to like your partner is a new one. Somewhere born in the Victorian/romantic era of the 19th century.

Our society is based on marriage between a man and a woman and their subsequent production of a family. That's what it is. There is no other definition.

OUR SOCIETY. Not a society that no longer exists; the one that we live in.

 

[granfire]

Our society is based upon the family. Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children. Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.

There is no other argument possible. Our society is not based on polygamous marriages. That's not speculation, that's fact.

In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement. I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage. Yet it has. They were wrong - at best. At worst, they're liars. The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me. You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it. The same-sex marriage proponents lied.

Well, your traditions went out the door with divorce laws. There is hardly a family that is 'a man, a woman and children' shucks, there are enough couples who are - by choice - without children. Not to mention enough 'families' who are without either man or woman...

You are keeping an argument alive that is still stuck in the last century: Up until the 1960s or even 70s a woman was to get married and have children. That was her sole purpose in life. But we have since moved away from that. I think those sentiments, that a woman can actually have a job outside the home was also met with 'you open the door to...' arguments.

 

[Makalakumu]

Our society is based upon the family. Family in the western world has a traditional meaning, which is a man, a woman, and children. Societies evolve, but they remain based on their foundations.

There is no other argument possible. Our society is not based on polygamous marriages. That's not speculation, that's fact.

In any case, you're ignoring my initial statement. I argued that those who supported same-sex marriage claimed that it would NOT lead to demands for polygamous marriage. Yet it has. They were wrong - at best. At worst, they're liars. The fact that you continue to ignore my basic premise means worlds to me. You know very well what I'm saying; you don't want to hear it or admit it. The same-sex marriage proponents lied.

I agree with you that proponents of same sex marriage made an error by claiming that their argument wouldn't apply to polygamy as well. It's obvious that it does and I've pointed that out many times in debates about this in the past.

Societies change. We already have plenty of polygamous families around us and it doesn't affect you at all. Other then an illogical religious argument and spurious associations, what reason is there to ban this?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree with you that proponents of same sex marriage made an error by claiming that their argument wouldn't apply to polygamy as well. It's obvious that it does and I've pointed that out many times in debates about this in the past.

Thank you. That was my primary thesis if you read the subject line of my post.

Societies change. We already have plenty of polygamous families around us and it doesn't affect you at all. Other then an illogical religious argument and spurious associations, what reason is there to ban this?

How about personal preference that our society remain traditional?

 

[granfire]

Not in the history of western society. Our shared society is of societies based on collections of families, and those families are made up of the so-called 'nuclear family.' Mother, father, children.

Revisionist historical attempts aside, that is fact. Inarguable. It is what it is, you cannot redefine history.



Our society is based on marriage between a man and a woman and their subsequent production of a family. That's what it is. There is no other definition.

OUR SOCIETY. Not a society that no longer exists; the one that we live in.

Just because you repeat the argument does not make it any more true.

Look past the western society and see how necessary 'marriage' is: the Chinese Naxi don't have a family tradition like we do. And oddly enough no marriage in that sense.
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Minorities/min-Naxi.html
several African tribes who have not yet been swallowed up my Islam have woman's choice in terms of selection of the mate, and when things don't turn out right, she can pick a new one the following year.

Marriage is a matter of lineage. Marriage is a matter of economic needs. But is non of the things other than that. Naturally, if you actually like your mate, it has always been a bonus.