Is legalizing Bigamy the next step?

[Mags]

On seeing the news that Maine is close to legalizing gay marriage (5th state to do so), and reading the article on Yahoo, it says:

The legislation, which will go to a vote in the state House of Representatives next week, seeks to redefine marriage as the legal union of two people rather than between a man and a women. It passed the Senate by a 20-15 margin.

Historically, our country was based on conservative principles, defined by (most) religion, in defining what we'd allow for marriage. Over the last number of years, it has become clear that our nation has decided that what we had previously as a nation considered "abnormal" sexual behavior is no longer to be considered abnormal.

Changing the wording of marriage from "legal union between a man and a woman to legal union of two people" was easy enough (for some states).

Where does this go next? Wouldn't it be just as easy to redefine the definition again to say "legal union between people" and not specifiy the number of people involved?

A couple of things to keep in mind BEFORE You respond:

1. This is not gay bashing in any way. Personally, I could care less what people do with their lives in regards to their personal relationships. It is not up to me to judge. Please don't turn this into a gay bashing thread

2. While I couldn't see having multiple wives (one is MORE than enough for me), I can certainly see the folks of Utah looking at this redefinition activity going on and wondering "why can't WE get it redefined too, to allow plural marriages"? Do we really think this is possible?

Is having multiple wives (or husbands) any more abnormal that having a parter of the same gender?

One thing to think about - plural marriages do have a basis in the Bible, espeically in the Old Testament. However, the Bible was very clear on its view of homosexuality (negative view of course).

So, plural marriages have more Bible backing for the conservative crowd.

Your thoughts? Do you think, if gay marriage is allowed, this should be allowed? Why or why not?

Discuss! I thought this would be an interesting topic for a Friday morning.......

Happy Friday All!

 

[kosar]

Sure. Why not? Who cares?

Any man who would want multiple wives deserves what he gets.

 

[Mags]

Sure. Why not? Who cares?

Any man who would want multiple wives deserves what he gets.

I guess that is one way to look at it... :mj07:

But think of the possibilities: you could have one brunette with a big bust, and one blonde with a small pooper... or vice versa.

You could collect as many as you could afford!

 

[Cie]

Sure. Why not? Who cares?

Any man who would want multiple wives deserves what he gets.

:mj07:

 

[StevieD]

I guess that is one way to look at it... :mj07:

But think of the possibilities: you could have one brunette with a big bust, and one blonde with a small pooper... or vice versa.

You could collect as many as you could afford!

I think Obama would want us to share.

 

[ImFeklhr]

Obviously, being gay, I have a bigger stake in this "battle" than most.

That being said, I completely understand the discomfort/disagreement some people have with gay marriage. It was something completely inconceivable 25 years ago. So, if someone grew up in a culture that barely talked about homosexuality and now has to consider sanctioned gay marriage... well that can be hard to comprehend.

But look... this is where we are. The gay equality movement is not going away. These genies rarely go back into the bottle. I am not saying all 50 states and the country as a whole will have gay marriage in 5, or even 10 years. But, can anybody really imagine a scenario where gay marriage isn't universal in 50 years? Children growing up in today's world have a MUCH more positive view of homosexuality than previous generations. They are more comfortable with a friend or family member being gay. And they are the voters of tomorrow....

This is one of the reason I am not "crushed" when a gay marriage bill fails. It is a disappointment, but the numbers are trending in "our" favor. The votes are getting closer, the mood is changing. The movement has really come a long way, VERY quickly. Again, think back 25-30 years ago, and how homosexuals were viewed by society? It was a dangerous thing to be a gay person. Now, true fear over being gay is relegated to smaller pockets of this country.

I grew up in San Francisco and it is obviously such a welcoming place for homosexuals (though remember growing UP in San Francisco does not increase your chances of being gay; none of my childhood friends are!) The worst thing that has ever happened to me was as I walked down a major street in SF at night, a group in a passing car, slowed down, shouted FAGGOTS and through eggs at us. Yes, I got nailed in the head by a friggin egg. And I laughed. I laughed because I knew people like that were losing the battle. I only mention this to illustrate the foregone conclusion that gay people are part of this country and society and aren't going anywhere. As I said, it's an upward trend. No turning back.

What does this mean for people who are opposed to gay marriage? That's tricky. I really, in my heart, believe there are some people who oppose gay marriage for non-hateful reasons. Whether it is because of religious or cultural convictions, they just can't support gay marriage. They just don't understand it, or think it robs them of their rights somehow. They think it will be unhealthy or society etc etc... The line in the sand for people like this has moved. They opposed and then eventually tolerated things like gay teachers in schools and domestic-partnerships (though I am sure there was similar furor when arrangements like these first were introduced). They occasionally tolerate gay-adoption. But, for some reason gay marriage is the last straw, the last frontier, point of no return...and they will never accept it.

The truly hateful people are not really worth explaining, so I will skip that.

My personal take is that legal government and religious marriages should be separate affairs. Either we should completely abolish governments role in marriage (i.e. government issues no marriage licenses, and all marriage exist only as private contracts between two (or more?) people). That appeals to me as someone in favor of limited government. Get the government completely out of the marriage business. Leave it to the churches and lawyers. However, government's involvement in our lives is so ubiquitous, there might be no way to put THAT genie back in the bottle either. The other option is to simply have the government let any two people get married. Religious groups (which have no official say in the way our government is run) can issue their own (non-legal) marriage certificates, that they can refuse to give gay people. It doesn't seem too complicated. Get married in a church, something only straight-people can do, then file for a government license, which anybody can do. It isn't that much different than how it works now.
Very little will change for straight people. Their lives and marriages will go on as normal.

A LOT will change for gay people. They will be able to have access to legal rights, as simply as straight people are. I also think it will completely change the way society views gay people. There will be a certain normalization of the gay experience for many gay people. They will know TRUE marriage is an option and they will make personal/relationship decisions geared towards that.

You started your original post off, with the suggestion that this a slippery slope of marriage rights. Is bigamy on its way back? I think probably not. For better or worse, gay marriage is a major issue because MILLIONS of gay Americans have a voice and are using it. They have made friends and allies, both politically and literally. The pro-bigamy crowd is MUCH MUCH smaller, and is unlikely to generate much "traction" ... That goes doubly for man-animal marriages or other outlandish things that some anti-gay-marriage suggest is "just around the corner"... This may strike some people as unfair, that only the loudest voice gets laws changed. If there were only 1000 gay people in America you can bet nobody would be talking about gay marriage. It's a sheer numbers game, for better or worse. So many people want this right, and they aren't afraid to raise a stink about it!

I've never felt the urge to be this long winded or open about my views on this matter, on Madjacks. I just happened to come across this thread, and the notion to chime in occurred to me. Feel free to agree or disagree. I appreciate the sentiment behind this thread, even if you and I might not be on the same "side".

 

[smurphy]

Bigamy or marrying animals or appliances is not the next step. Gay marriage doesn't lead to anything except gay people being maried. No connection , no slippery slope, no floodgates.

Fek - thanks for sharing. I think Gardenweasel STILL won't believe you are gay though.

 

[Mags]

You started your original post off, with the suggestion that this a slippery slope of marriage rights. Is bigamy on its way back? I think probably not. For better or worse, gay marriage is a major issue because MILLIONS of gay Americans have a voice and are using it. They have made friends and allies, both politically and literally. The pro-bigamy crowd is MUCH MUCH smaller, and is unlikely to generate much "traction" ... It's a sheer numbers game, for better or worse. So many people want this right, and they aren't afraid to raise a stink about it!

Wow - this was a GREAT response.

I think, the Bigamy crowd, would have a very strong argument - but would have to go about it in a much different way than the gay crowd.

You are right - the gay movement is much larger than the "plural marriage" movement.

BUT - let's say the "plural marriage" movement took this to court, and ultimately to the Supreme Court. What possible basis could the Supreme Court say no to "plural marriage"?

They can's say that Bigamy is against the majority view - because the same could be said about gay marriage. They couldn't put themselves in the moral situation saying one is better than the other.

I would have to bet the folks in UT and AZ that are plural marriage supporters are watching this with keen interest, and a court challenge would be successful - they are just waiting to pick the right timing to go about it.

I don't see any difference between the 2 issues - both are non traditional, and if we are not going to adhere to "old" traditional values - who's to say which one is ok, and which one is not?

Although Kosar did say it all when he said "those who want more than 1 wife have what's coming to them". I guess, be careful what you wish for!

It may make life easier for CEO's though - they could keep their legacy wife (and she'll stay for the lifestyle she is accustomed to) and instead of cheating with his secretary, he'll just marry her too! :00hour

 

[Julene]

I for one can't wait for bigamy to be legalized. I mean having one husband was soooo much fun, I can't imagine how great two or three would be.

 

[smurphy]

I for one can't wait for bigamy to be legalized. I mean having one husband was soooo much fun, I can't imagine how great two or three would be.

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

Actually, this is probably what would happen. We assume it always means multiple wives, but the way women run the show these days it would be just as common for the multiple husband thing to happen.

 

[hedgehog]

I still can't believe we have an openly gay member here at madjacks:scared it takes balls Imfekr to do that

Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman.

 

[MadJack]

I still can't believe we have an openly gay member here at madjacks:scared it takes balls Imfekr to do that

Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman.

:nooo:

man, you are SO narrow minded. really!

great post, felk.

and i don't give a shit if a man wants to marry his dog. BFD!

and more than one wife? :scared

funny, julie

 

[hedgehog]

:nooo:

man, you are SO narrow minded. really!

great post, felk.

and i don't give a shit if a man wants to marry his dog. BFD!

and more than one wife? :scared

funny, julie

Jack, I stand on principles...not narrow minded just old school and Conservative, I will never change...I was respectful of Fekr...

If you let two gay guys or women marry then you have to let a guy marry his mule:scared , or his dog, etc...marriage should only be 1 man and 1 woman. That is what it is now why does everyone want to change it? All these fuckin liberals make me want to throw up...

 

[ImFeklhr]

I still can't believe we have an openly gay member here at madjacks:scared it takes balls Imfekr to do that

It's the internet... It's easy.

What would take some balls would be for you to come to visit SF... and let me take you out for a night on the town. :mj07:

 

[hedgehog]

It's the internet... It's easy.

What would take some balls would be for you to come to visit SF... and let me take you out for a night on the town. :mj07:

kurby I would fit in like a turd in a punchbowl


Let me ask you one question Fekr

How young were you when you knew you were gay? Did you ever date women?

environment or born that way:shrug:

 

[smurphy]

Jack, I stand on principles...not narrow minded just old school and Conservative, I will never change...I was respectful of Fekr...

If you let two gay guys or women marry then you have to let a guy marry his mule:scared , or his dog, etc...marriage should only be 1 man and 1 woman. That is what it is now why does everyone want to change it? All these fuckin liberals make me want to throw up...

You confuse principles with opinions. Principles are related to ethics - the garbage you spew has nothing to do with that.

 

[MadJack]

Jack, I stand on principles...not narrow minded just old school and Conservative, I will never change...I was respectful of Fekr...

If you let two gay guys or women marry then you have to let a guy marry his mule:scared , or his dog, etc...marriage should only be 1 man and 1 woman. That is what it is now why does everyone want to change it? All these fuckin liberals make me want to throw up...

why do you care what somebody else wants and does? it's not principle, it's opinion, like smurph said.

on the extreme; so what if a guy married his mule. SFW? you gonna KILL him?

 

[hedgehog]

why do you care what somebody else wants and does? it's not principle, it's opinion, like smurph said.

on the extreme; so what if a guy married his mule. SFW? you gonna KILL him?

principle meaning 1 man 1 woman marriage

mule fucker needs to go to a psychiatrist, mental problems

 

[ImFeklhr]

How young were you when you knew you were gay? Did you ever date women?

environment or born that way:shrug:

That's a huge ball of wax. I tend to believe it's born that way, with environment playing a small role in some instances.

But its hard to say. For example if a gay guy is not close to his dad, but close to his mother, you could point to that and say "see, a boy needs a strong male role model" ... but there are plenty of straight people who aren't close to their fathers... etc etc.

...Never dated a woman.

 

[dunclock]

That's a huge ball of wax. I tend to believe it's born that way, with environment playing a small role in some instances.

But its hard to say. For example if a gay guy is not close to his dad, but close to his mother, you could point to that and say "see, a boy needs a strong male role model" ... but there are plenty of straight people who aren't close to their fathers... etc etc.

...Never dated a woman.

how do you know that fek is not a woman:shrug:

and wtf would that matter:shrug:

I have been around fek a couple years and they have a great sense of humor and to you attack or judge is very simple minded:scared

I tell you what in my new job of traveling, when I go to San Fran or TX, I would want to much rather have dinner with fek than you