Why aren't polygamy and the marriage of adult siblings legal, like gay marriage?
Since the definition has been changed to legalize gay marriage, why stop there? Why aren't marriages between all consenting adults be legal? Or why stop there, how about marriages between all living creatures? In ancient Rome the emperor married his horse. Who says the relationship wasn't consensual, maybe there was a spiritual connection ie. the life force, the circle of life ect.
Here is why incest is not a good idea. A common justification given for the incest taboo is the impact inbreeding may have on children of incestuous sex. Children whose biological parents have a close genetic relationship have an increased risk of congenital disorders, death, and disability due at least in part to genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding.
As far as the rest of your statement it has to do with the "slippery slope and what if" tactic that carries things to absurdity. I assume you are heterosexual. Did you have choice to be that way? It's the same thing with homosexuality. They don't have a choice. My Son is Gay and I have a much better understanding of it, since he came out.
What is absurdity? Not that long ago in my generation the idea of gay marriage was considered an absurdity. I think my line of reasoning is very logical, that it leads to absurdity is not my fault.
You are the one who is posing the hypothesis. You should take credit for it.
Given that animals don't have the capacity to understand marriage, it would be impossible for them to give consent. Even if a person claimed they did, an interspecies relationship cannot be proven to be consensual (if you ask a horse if they are in love with a person and wanted to marry them, you're obviously not going to get an answer). Don't be silly.
As for polygamy, I would be fine with that being legal so long as everyone was a willing participant.
Marrying a sibling or close blood relative could result in unhealthy children, so the reason for not allowing that is to protect potential offspring.
A consenting adult should be able to marry whichever other consenting adult(s) they choose so long as it isn't causing harm. End of story.
That last paragraph is exactly it. As long as it involves consenting adults, how my neighbor chooses to define his or her marriage is none of my business.
Isn't it a common new age belief, that we're all connected by some sort of life force? What about the Dog whisperer, doesn't he claim to understand the dogs feelings? It would be difficult to disprove, wouldn't it?
wba - you have quite the imagination! Why do you think "some sort of life force" is a common new age belief? Speak for yourself, dude. Speak in specifics, not generalities that you "assume".
I'm certainly no expert but according to Wikipedia the life force emerged in the spiritualist movement and inspired thinkers in the modern New age movement.
You can define it however you want to, of course. But that doesn't make it a "common" belief as you are saying. It may be "common" to SOME people, but not as a general statement. Again, try to think in facts and specifics. I know u can if u try!
Didn't I say that I thought it was a common New Age belief ?
Yes, you did say that. I'm saying it's NOT common at all. A lot of people think it's nonsense. I'm also trying to tell you not to ASSUME things! Try thinking with an open mind.
Dodging the issue, wba? The issue really is about consent. If you are a supporter of liberty then it would follow that you wouldn't want to try to dictate what consenting adults do with each other.
if you asked someone from PETA if animals have human like feelings and a free will they would probably agree, wouldn't they? Then whose to say they can't give consent. And what about minors under 16 can't they give consent?
Bigamy would increase the chance of half siblings marrying, thus ruining the gene pool.
I'm sure if enough people made the arguments, and went through the legal process to change the laws, polygamy could be legalized. There isn't a large enough challenge to anti-polygamy laws for that to happen.
Likewise, I'm sure the law could change to allow close blood relatives to marry if there were enough people willing to mount the legal challenges to laws against this. However, I doubt there are very many siblings and first cousins interested in doing so. Also, as has been pointed out by others, there is a genetic obstacle to these people having children, since an increased risk of congenital disorders comes with inbreeding.
The law changes as society changes. Marriage as a civil contract can change as society changes, as we've seen with laws dealing with mixed race and same sex marriages.
Should laws be altered to suit powerful and popular causes while denying justice to the less powerful or ever a small minority group?
The law is always influenced by powerful and popular. Gays make up 10% of the population, but gay marriage is now legal. It takes time, legal challenges, and persistence to change laws. Absurdity rarely works as a legal argument.
Aren't laws supposed to be equally applied regardless of how we feel about them or how popular they are? The modern NAZI party or KKK can hold public rallies can't they?
That if the definition of marriage can be altered to accommodate Gay marriage then it logically follows that any other union should be legal, no matter how absurd.
If you would like to make the argument in court that incest and polygamy should be legalized, go for it. Meanwhile, the law allows two people not first degree relatives to marry, regardless of gender. That's the law 'til your case is successful.
I think you'd agree that all Supreme Court decisions are not good, how about years ago when marriage equality was denied, did u agree with that ruling?
Because hey don't have the backing of the powerful organization like the ACLU, and LGBT behind them.
Po;polygamy is associated with Mormons, and adult siblings with incest.
Neither of which is wide spread as LGBT.
I think you're on to something here, the laws are altered based on the strength of the advocate but what about equal protection under the law, it seems the law is for sale to the highest bidder?
Gays only make up 10% of the population. They became a powerful lobby over the course of 50 years. It takes time to change minds. It took African-Americans almost 100 years between the end of slavery, and signing of the Civil Rights Act.
equal protection under the law is the perfect example for the strong advocate.
Standing alone it is an ambiguous, and vague phrase. What does the phrase , All Men Are Created Equal.
It didn't include blacks or women.
But later on it was changed via Constitutional amendment's, not arbitrarily altered to suit a political agenda.
Marriage is a legal contract. It is not, as is popularly believed, a "religious" union.
So, if anyone wants to enter into a legal contract with anyone else, it is no business of yours. Of course "legal contracts" are defined by the current laws of the area in which the persons concerned live.
In other words, Is it legal for adults to marry? Yes, it is now.
Is bigamy legal, no it isn't (at the current time).
Is incest legal, not in most states and countries. Is bestiality legal? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is in some places.
Why would you want to regulate other people's lives? If people of legal age and capacity want to enter into ANY legal contract, why do you care? Do you just want to put yourself in charge of the world?
If you want to change or enforce the laws, then do that instead of getting into a tizzy over who gets to marry whom. It's not for you to say.
If you don't like the world, then change it - by legal means, of course.
In the eyes of the state its a legal contract that recognizes a religious union and now also unions forbidden by many churches.
The state does not recognize a religious union. The state recognizes a civil contract, which is why you can't be legally married without a license. If you stand up in church to marry, the law will not recognize it without filing of state paperwork.
wba - you are incorrect. The government only deals in legalities. The government is not interested in religious dogma. You are free to practice any religion you want or no religion at all.
Marriage is really just a license and not a real contract. If it were a contract the terms would defined by the parties, and not the state. Because it isn't a contract dissolution of it depends on presumptions made by the laws of that state.
A license is the same thing as saying a legal contract. The license grants you certain legal rights.
Bunch if tax breaks... Talk about discrimination! Gay couples were paying so much more to live here, with less of the privileges!!
Polygamy is legal in several parts of the world.
A percentage of people feel it should be legal in the U.S. as they point to the fact many biblical men in the bible had several wives. King Solomon is purported to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines!
Having said that there is a major leap going from legalized gay marriage to incest. The two have absolutely nothing in common with each other!
Birth defects and mental illness is highly common among couples that commit incest.
Just because two women who have been dating or living together for years can now get married does not mean brothers and sisters or fathers and their grown daughters or people should marry their pets....etc
And yet many folks feel now that gays and lesbians can get married we might as well not have any marital laws. That's how much they detest them having the same right to marry who they love the way us heterosexuals can.
Anyone who compares gay/lesbian marriage to incestuous couples or even bestiality is telling you lump gays and lesbians in the same mix.
It's not illegal for people to be gay or lesbian. It was not illegal for them fall in love. It was not illegal for them to live together or adopt children.
Living in a nation where we have separation of church and state where we also state it is illegal to discriminate in business transactions based upon age, race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation marriage equality becomes a civil rights issue.
Bear in mind it was not until 1967 the Supreme Court struck down all state laws that forbid "interracial marriage" in the Loving v. Virginia case. That's just less than 50 years ago!
I'm sure some folks at that time may have thought we might as well allow brothers and sisters to marry or let people marry their pets.
In fact some people viewed blacks in particular as being similar to animals just a lot folks consider gay and lesbians to be (less than) human. What difference does it make to any of us if a gay couple is married? dating? or cohabitating?
Why can't I carry a Howizer to the club? Why can't my kid bring a 38 to school? Why isn't a shooting range included in gym class? Why can't I bring a gun to the parent/teacher conference? Its my right!!!
Are you saying now that there's marriage equality laws we should eliminate all laws? Was discriminating against gays and lesbians the only thing that was holding society together? Now that is gone we might as well start anarchy? It's the end?
Yes, and come to think of it....now that corporations are people, when can I marry Dunkin Donuts?
Krispy Kreme would make a better catch! LOL!
I think you made a valid point SH, the state does have an interest in regulating certain behavior for the general welfare of all of us
To glut, pig out and enjoy til death do us part! YUMMMM
The state has an interest in preventing unions which can cause harm. It has no interest in preventing unions which cause no harm.
Having sex with minors causes harm, so it is illegal, regardless of consent.
People tried to argue that same-sex marriage had harmful effects and they were completely unable to demonstrate any harm, hence the state has absolutely no interest in preventing such unions.
It is still believed that polygamy and incest are harmful unions and so the state still maintains an interest in prohibiting them. To eliminate such prohibition will require an effort similar to what took place with same-sex marriage. Personally, I think both will eventually be legal, but it will require establishing that neither is harmful.
As for marrying horses and spiritual connections and such, you may be absolutely right. Maybe there can be life-force consensual bonds between different creatures. It is irrelevant unless you can prove it to the state, and I am a bit skeptical they will put much stock in that particular argument.
In short, the logic is a matrix of harm/no-harm consensual/non-consensual. The state has no interest in prohibiting consensual, non-harmful unions. The others it does.
You're right! And they NEVER consult Bible which this country was supposedly established on!
Guess what? Satan's winning down here! (Jn 10:10)
He's already been defeated! But look how many lost souls he's "twisted the minds" of!
If Satan is influencing people to support stuff like marriage equality and pro-choice women's rights then I must say, Satan sounds like a pretty cool guy.
Does your Pro- Choice view also for the unborn child, it seems that they're given no choice at all! And does your marriage equality extend to siblings or other arrangements? How about between adults and consenting children?
Children, fetuses, the mentally incapable, and a few others do NOT have the luxury of "free will". Someone must do their choosing for them. The choice SHOULD be contraception, not abortion, THAT is "pro-choice". Why do you try to confuse the issue?
Haven't we already discussed the issues that complicate marriage between siblings/children? No need to be obtuse.
I'd be interested to hear what you think a <12 week old fetus will do when you ask it to make a choice.
Austinstar- I would dispute that I child doesn't have a free will, even an unborn child would try to avoid pain and death. And choosing to murder an unborn child gives no choice to the child.
How about when we choose to murder BORN children? How about those who starve to death, while we watch? How about all these kids SHOT bang bang? And where is the choice of the living, breathing woman? She becomes your pawn. Nature gave to women.Finito
Good point SH and this is a sticky point but in the very rare case where the women would die giving birth, I would leave the life of the child in her hands.
Polygamy has been practiced by various cultures. There are even rogue sects of Mormons who still do it. Adult siblings, that leads to creating a child from the same bloodline. Children born from this union suffer serious health issues and birth defects. This leads to the question of who gets to define marriage. A society as a whole or should it be done on an individual basis? Should the definition of marriage be left to the government or a church?
The reason for legalizing gay marriage has to do with the legal rights of the couple. Before legalizing, gays lived together without any legal rights to the estate of the their partner. Now they have that legal right just like any married couple
Gay marriage is not the same as polygamy or sibling-marriages. And equating them is like saying 'riding horses is a slippery slope to riding eagles'. The only similarity is that marriage is involved. (Or in the case of my example, riding an animal.)
Making those kind of associations is nothing more than an excuse to deny civil rights of others that you don't personally agree with. If the subject of polygamy comes to the supreme court, then it's time to debate polygamy. If the subject of sibling-marriage comes to the supreme court, then it's time to debate sibling-marriage. If gay marriage comes to the supreme court, it's NOT the time to debate polygamy and sibling-marriage.
Why change the definition of marriage to suit one group of consenting adults while denying other groups? The similarities are that they're all consenting adults looking for a legal sanction for there marriage.
Because the legal definition of marriage is in the hands of the majority, i.e. the will of the people. The other two groups do not represent the views of the majority. If one day that changes, we can address that side of the issue. But not now.
Isn't an important function of the courts to protect minorities, from the tyranny of the majority?
You're grasping for straws, wba. Your last comment is completely nonsensical. No "minorities" are being hurt from the decision to allow gay marriage.
I was referring to the minorities supporting incest and polygamy.
A government can protect its minorities, sure. But a democracy is ruled by the majority.
Even a republic suggests the people have the power. We elect representatives, based on a majority vote, who follow our ideals. A candidate who supports polygamy and sibling marriage, wouldn't have the votes to win. i.e. it's will of the people.
Isn't the point of having a Constitution being that the law applies equally regardless of sentiments. Now if the majority want to change the Constitution, let them do it by the agreed upon way which is the amendment process.
Patience Will. Every sin that God's Word commands against will be promoted eventually--that is until Christ takes charge.
With the exception of the west, all culture practice polygamy till the 20th century. The reason polygamy end was because it is usually only a single men can have multiple wife in some culture, in others a single women can have multiple husbands and in some, it can go either way .But what women want multiple men pressuring her for sex? So it is nearly, a single men having multiple wives. The problem with polygamy today is that, if we allow polygamy, it would mean, only certain people would have spouse and other don't because there is a limitation of the type of people that others are sexually attracted to. During the early 20th century, some women groups also criticized polygamy for been sexist and unfair to women. Today, a lot of people in fact are settling for less then they prefer, but still feel good enough to acceptable. If polygamy is allow, then the number people who would have children would have spouse would be more limited, therefore fewer people would have children. This would result in a smaller variety of genetic variation, within our society, in the long run. So, we should keep a single partner relationship. However, if for example, like what happened in Russia after WW2, where there was 1 man to 5 women, then they should definitely allow polygamy, to an extend where a man can have 5 wives, so, the number of women that can passed on their gene is not limited to 1/5, thus ensure genetic variation in society. And continue such form of polygamy, for that generation, after that when the next generation emerged and the ration between men and women is once again 1:1, then legalization of polygamy marriage should naturally end. From an evolution point of view, this is important. Unfortunately, Russia didn't legalized such form of polygamy in the aftermath of WW2. But that is also why, Russian women today are mostly very beautiful, because only the most attractive 1/5 of women from post WW2 generation, have children. Despite this mean the next generation of Russians are more attractive looking. From an evolution point of view, it is a bad thing, because it mean, Russia now have a smaller genetic variety, in its society
The key word in this forum is legality. The scenarios that you describe would be a legal nightmare. That's the reason the supreme court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. It provides legal rights to an both partners.
Not necessary, most nations that once legalized polygamy, the men need the permission of their 1st wife, if he want to take a 2nd. So, there is no real problem there
Marriage between siblings is prohibited for reasons other than religious, as well. In most cultures, both eastern and western, incest is taboo, and there's several reasons for it, including evolutionary ones. We may be conditioned to "dislike" incest because it does horrors for a species' genepool. This is the reason as to why marriage among cousins is prohibited in many places.
Polygamy is also problematic because it has certain deleterious effects on society, which I cannot cite here because it would take too much space and time, and there are people better suited to explain it. Also, western society is based around monogamous marriages, and breaking away from that would require enourmous reforms to legal systems and would clash with several cultures and religions, for almost no real benefit, since only a small portion of society is receptive to polygamy (receptive as in "would partake in polygamy", not "is ok with it but wouldn't do it).
Couldn't the case be made that legitimizing Gay unions also has deleterious effects on society? Doesn't history show that public support of homosexuality usually proceeds the decline of that culture, look at Rome and Greece?
History also shows that Christianity had a lot to do with the fall of the Roman Empire.
Oooooh, let's outlaw Christianity....see how they like it.
Its admittedly difficult to prove specifically what would bring the decline of a civilization. I think its safe to say the immorality in itself is never good for any society.
As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business with marriage whatsoever. People should do what they want. Marriage is a partnership based on love, respect, and a personal relationship.. hmm I don't really see how the government fits into that, unless people invite them to. If you want to put a government stamp on everything you do, I'm afraid many people will be unhappy people.
I couldn't fit everything I wanted to say in this, but here's what I could get:
To me, marriage is about two consenting adults making a commitment to their one true love to be partners in life and a promise to be faithful to that person. What is the point of marriage if you are making the same commitment to 4 or 5 other people and still get to sleep with them, especially if all the other spouses are only married to you and don't have the same privilege. Most cultures that practice polygamy only allow the husband to have several wives, but wives only get one husband. How can two people become united as one if your other half has several other halves your not married to? If a man has several wives and one gets a yeast infection or had HPV or an STD, then all the wives would get it too (men can sometimes pass on things without knowing they have it and sometimes just pass it on without ever getting symptoms, which can potentially pass on to their offspring). Many religions that still practice this also usually brainwash their children into believing that it’s the only acceptable option and that a man without multiple wives is seen as a disgrace and that women are to be submissive and if they protest they are sinning by going against gods will (form of coercion, even commercials for Sister Wives shows them doing that).
Animals do not have the ability to communicate with humans and cannot voice their opinion on the matter; so that rules out consent. Also, while animals are capable of platonically loving and caring for a being of another species, they often do not mate with animals of another species in the wild (some zoos breed hybrids such as ligers and tigons with artificial insemination, most resulting offspring [if they survive to adulthood] are often sterile). Human genes are different from most animal genes and wouldn’t splice to make a viable embryo. And, quite frankly, if it were possible, any resulting offspring would most likely be horribly disfigured, possibly disabled [blind, deaf, mentally challenged, etc.], sterile (natures way of preventing more from be created) and, honestly, an abomination of nature.
As for the case against incest, reproduction is more likely then with animals but the problem is their genes are too similar often resulting in double whammy for recessive genetic disorders (Amish communities are experiencing higher rates of infant mortality rates, genetic mutations and mental retardation due to small communities and inbreeding.
There is also the ethics of the power struggle issue, where one (usually the older one) could be using manipulation to trick the other into consenting (the same reason why it’s frowned upon for doctors to date patients, even if they are adults).
So then according to your reasoning, it be ok for siblings to marry as long as one of them is sterile and there was no chance of having children because your concern is for the quality and health of their offspring?
That's not at all what I am saying. As a mentioned I couldn't fit all I wanted to put in my original post because of character maxes and added a comment after that I couldn't put in the original post. Next time, read everything before you comment.
Sibling marriage is medically proven to cause genetic disorders and physical or mental disabilities. So the way I see, it is not just about the moral aspect, but more to do with birth defects due to combination of similar DNA streams. Of course,society judges everything with morality rather than science and I am not trying to undermine moral rules. I simply mean that regardless of the moral aspect, sibling marriage is medically dangerous to the off-springs, like a genetic experiment we know have chances of going bad.
Polygamy on the other hand is allowed in certain religions (Islam being the best example) and tribes. But from a social perspective, promoting polygamy would be like promoting more chaos. The whole point of monogamy is to maintain discipline and order through a simplistic idea of a family - man, woman, child. Both partners getting married to multiple people would simply cause confusion - financially, socially and in many other ways. It would ruin the concept of family, since polygamy would lead to "multiple" families, which evokes the question, how should a man/woman distribute priorities and responsibilities among his/her various families.
I can only answer for myself, I don't believe that brothers and sisters should become couples period.
I don't think I have the right to say that gay people should not be married,
and will neither condone or condemn a gay union, However, I don't think that a church official should be forced to marry gay or polygamy couples or straight couples for that matter.
Wish I could give you a profound answer, but this is the best I can do.
Considering the rapid rate of soicietal degradation, you may not have to wait long.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
by Akriti Mattu 5 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by James Smith 8 years ago
. . . hang around long enough to talk about how much of an idiot Rick Santorum is and then disappear when asked to provide principles they believe in. It's not enough any more! So tell me, my lefty friends, when you have your gay marriage and abortion rights, what do you believe in?
by PrettyPanther 5 years ago
The world is a' changin' and we're a little slow but we're tagging along.Read the opinion in its entirety here:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06 … y-marriage
by Elizabeth 4 years ago
How does legalized gay marriage "ruin" or affect a heterosexual one?One of the most common arguments against gay marriage is that legalizing gay marriage will somehow minimize or ruin heterosexual marriages. Admittedly, this is one of the stupidest arguments out there, but it is one...
by Glen 10 years ago
1) Being gay is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|