If homosexual marriage is a Right, why can't I have multiple wives? (Being Serious NO CAT TALK)

This is a good question, and there is really no deep answer except that marriage is not a right, but a privilege and a tradition. I wouldnt mind if marriage included polygamy/polyandry, but this would still discriminate against single people and would be such a mess that Id rather go the opposite way and abolish legal marriage instead.

Either way, this is such a non-issue and I dont really get why people are so excited about some optional paper from the government..

I have often wondered about the homosexual issue , I am thinking is is a form of population control by the manipulation of genes by our caretakers be it ET or "God" , if everyone was straight and making babys we would have an even bigger world wide population problem, as far as having more then one wife...while it maybe be great for awhile but as with most marriages (not all) when the fighting about money, housework , etc starts it would turn into a nightmare and maybe best avoided .........

Lets go further, why can't a man marry his sister? Oh there are genetic deffects that would result in any children born? Well, we can fix that with egg or sperm donation, so they can still have children just like normal same sex couples can. After all, if they love each other why should we stop them? What more stable marriage could you get, they were brought up together and know everything about each other, if after all that they want to live the rest of thier lives together then it is obvious they would make the perfect couple. The children would be brought up in a stable family.

See, you can defend anything if you want to.

Whoops, I'd started a thread after yours without knowing about this one (I looked up "polygamy" on the search engine). I'll post my initial comments from that thread, edited to fit this thread. Good topic, great minds thinking alike and all that:

Gay marriage will be legal throughout the United States very soon, or at least in the next twelve years. That's a given. It may take as little as one or two. So the next legal and marriage rights battleground there and throughout the world will be polygamy. If two women love a guy, and he loves both of them, then the U.S. HBO series "Big Love" shows that it looks about the same as any other marriage, it just depends on the number of people unified in total support of each other and sometimes at each other's throats.

All the other great apes are polygamous in their relationships and social bonds. Polygamy is very common in some countries, especially amongst those with lots of money (and even in nonpolygamous countries, very powerfrul men usually have a mistress or two and that's just seen as normal and is no big deal in lots of nations). With gay rights rolling towards an inevitable win, does that means that three men can marry each other once polygamy is allowed. An OP did a thread in 2010 about "Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?" - which, imnho, is one of the better thread names I've seen at ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com... That thread here.


So the next civil right associated with marriage will be polygamy. It's the only one left which demans consenting adults to make a marriage agreement. Bestiality won't be fought as a legal civil right, because no consent can be given by the animal that would stand up in a court of law. All bestiality is rape, and that's not going to be legalized. Incestous marriage? Will dad marry his daughter? Not in my imagination of "knowing" level, that won't be allowed because it's just gross to the human social brain, but the right likely can be legally argued by consenting adults, I guess. Gross. Child-adult marriages. Nope, won't happen, no consenting adult in the mix. In the U.S. the age of consent is low, but NAMBA, ain't gonna happen dudes, and they know it.

Which leaves polygamy, which seems pretty normal to me. That's because I know humans are apes and apes practice polygamy. Would that stand up as a legal argument?

And of course theres the "What would happen" question. A polygamous triple or quadruple ("would you like to go on an octagonal-date with us?") moves into, say, the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and want citizenship. Wouldn't they be allowed to stay married even when citizenship were granted? They'd have a very good legal argument, and might win that case depending on the forward-lookingness of the Supreme Court. In twelve years they'd win it for sure. Legal polygamy is coming, it's also inevitable. Just a matter of how long it will take, another decade or more? So three options are "under a decade", "over a decade" or "never". The "never"'s have a hard case to sell, I personally think it's over/under twelve years in the U.S..

reply to post by Swing80s


as long as it's fair to both males and females. if a man can have "sister wives" then a woman should be able to have "brother husbands."

Originally posted by subfab
reply to post by Swing80s

 

as long as it's fair to both males and females. if a man can have "sister wives" then a woman should be able to have "brother husbands."

You took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't agree more. Woman who are the bread winners, etc. should have the ability to have more than 1 husband if men can have more than 1 wife.

Originally posted by Cinrad
Lets go further, why can't a man marry his sister? Oh there are genetic deffects that would result in any children born? Well, we can fix that with egg or sperm donation, so they can still have children just like normal same sex couples can. After all, if they love each other why should we stop them? What more stable marriage could you get, they were brought up together and know everything about each other, if after all that they want to live the rest of thier lives together then it is obvious they would make the perfect couple. The children would be brought up in a stable family.

See, you can defend anything if you want to.

First of all, this is already happening in many cultures/ religions, that they intermarry legally [often forced] with [very] close relatives and the outcomes are horrific but it is legal and happening in many countries, so it isn't just your 'hypothetical' scenario, therefore your argument is void.

You are also allowed to live with your sibling, regardless if you play with each other's bits and you have already more rights because you are related. So marriage wouldn't really add anything. Lots of Twins live together.

Secondly homosexuals are all human [last time I looked], they are not of another species. So if two humans fall in love, who actually cares about their gender?
Seriously, people are too obsessed with genitals. Oooh, they both have Willies...so effing what?
Would people be as annoyed if two asexual people loved each other and wanted to marry?

A relationship is NOT just based around sex. Sex is part of it but the greater rest is filled with understanding each other, having a laugh, feeling protected, feeling at ease, being happy with each other, having similar interests, going out together, making a nest to live in, holding hands, having a cuddle whilst watching a film, cooking together etc etc etc.

Gay people do all those things above and yes, sometimes they play with their bits. How this is in any way relevant to others is beyond me. Unless you are unhealthily obsessed with genitalia or you are in such a bad marriage where you are jealous when it works for others.

In the end I personally could't care less if you want to marry your sibling [no need , but hey], marry 50 wives or husbands, or marry the same gender. As long as you are happy and as long as all marriages are treated equally.

Gay people had to fight hard to get what should be their right, if anyone wants to fight for marrying their siblings or become a polygamist then they also have the RIGHT to fight for it. Who knows, if enough people are interested they may get what they want.

Sitting huffing and puffing in your armchair using illogical arguments will never make a change, it just makes you look very uneducated. All I can say is that life is short, love is strong and nature is all encompassing.

So why are there some individuals who think they know better than mother nature [who is totally happy with homosexuality as it happens in all lifeforms, all the time and has never had any negative outcome to evolution or it would be naturally deselected]?

This thread is proof that people will find a reason to justify their hate no matter what.

having multiple wives could be viewed as a form of insanity. Can you imagine being nagged by a GROUP of women?

reply to post by Swing80s

As far as I'm concerned...

go for it if you can (or want after a few months... or years).

Seriously...i don't see having multiple wives, or multiple husbands as a problem, if all parties agree to that setup.

I don't see a problem with two of one gender and one of the other, or same sex, or variations thereof either.

People have only one life...if it makes them happy and it's what everyone involved wants to do, who the hell should tell them they're wrong?

Less controlling freaks, and more freedom of choice and tolerance in this world would be nice, but controlling freaks love to have control i suppose.

reply to post by Swing80s



If gay marriage is approved (which it should be) AND polygamy is approved then a women (or man) that is bisexual could have 3 wives and 2 husbands. In order for that to happen there would be no added tax breaks for multiple partners and no welfare or aid since there are so many there is no reason for them not to work. For medical insurance reasons they can all be on a policy but the premiums would be based per person not defined as a "family" plan. Only children would be lumped under one premium. all adults would pay individual premiums. I feel everyone has a right to marry, be happy, be missrable, get divorced and loose half there stuff just like everyone else.

This argument does not make any sense. No one is talking about marrying multiple partners, at all. The argument is that if two people of opposite sexes can get married, why can't two people of the same sex. The point is the "right" of marriage, which in the US is a sacred vow between TWO people. Honestly the issue of the sex of those people is not that big of a deal. Marriage is dumb imo, although that is irrelevant. I think the only reason people get married is because of the few benefits it confers upon the couple, as well as because that is what people think they are supposed to do if they love each other.

I suppose it makes sense from the point of view that it lets each partner know the other is committed to the relationship, but this is not really the case since one can simply get a divorce after the fact. I think too many people make a big deal out of little things. People say that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, etc, etc. Actually, what the Bible really says about homosexuality, which apparently not many people realize, is that it is a punishment. Paul makes this clear in the NT, I think in Romans, but I'm not positive.

So the point is not that homosexuality should be punished, but that it is a punishment in itself. I do not believe that personally, and this is one of the Biblical aspects I highly disagree with. I know this is not what the thread is about, but I figured that someone would attempt to use this tired old argument about the Bible and homosexuality, so I figured I would offer both a logical and a religious rebuttal...Just to cover my bases.

Originally posted by TriForce
reply to post by Swing80s

 

Jeez man, one wife was enough for me to put up with.. Why in the hell would you want multiple ones?

agree with you completely on this. I wouldn't even think about it for the sake of sparking a debate on ATS

The question about polygamy is NOT about a legal right, for me - it's a question about my own consciousness.

As a male, the idea of "being allowed to" have multiple women is of course attractive, I would lie if i would deny that. BUT....if I tell to myself "Why can't I have multiple women?", then I OF COURSE also will have to grant that same right to my wife.

If I have the right to have a bunch of women, then I MUST also be "fine" with the idea that my wife could do the same. But this, of course causes a problem Because I would not want my wife having multiple guys beside me.

As a result, I cannot be "for polygamy". As easy as that. Either I am consistent with that or not. And we do NOT live in a society like in Iran where males gets a certain right and a women not.

reply to post by Swing80s


I think because marriage is between 2 humans. Not of religion. Also the union of marriage between 2 could be due to insurance, taxes, children etc.
Do you think a woman should be able to marry multiple men?
I have a open mind to many things and I am not religious in any way, but for some reason polygamy really bothers me!

reply to post by Swing80s


I could certainly use a couple of extra wives around here. I asked my current wife what she thought but you can imagine her resistance. I told her she could be the head wife and all that but she still refused. I think it would be easier to pass a pro-polygamy law through congress than it would be to pass it through our current wives.
Having multiple wives would have its advantages but I can see some real disadvantages as well. Lets say you have 3 wives. That is 3 times the drama we all have to put up with now, and studies show that women who live together eventually take on the same "cycle" as the more dominant one. Could you imagine having to deal with three times that drama?
If you had wives of multiple nationalities, say, one from China, one from India, and one from Spain, dinner time could get really exciting. They could all take turns or you could end up with some Indochinesespanish fusion of a dish that would knock your socks off.
I could probably get behind multiple wives, but what about multiple husbands? This is where the double-standard would kick in for me. I wouldn't want to be part of that. I could share myself with other wives but I couldn't share my wife with other men. I think that is ingrained in the male species for the most part. Even in the animal kingdom lions will have multiple lioness, but are intolerant of other male lions trying to get in on the action. I'm sure there are many men out there that would be okay with it, but I believe most men would be against the whole multiple husband thing, at least the men I know.
Just my thoughts.

You should be able to marry what ever you want. The question is, why would you want a civil marriage. Civil marriages benefit only one group of people... They are called divorce lawyers. Also, why would want the government interfering with your life even more.

Just make your own agreement between you and your partner(s)


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by tluna1


Why would they have to be bi-sexual? Just because you have multiple wives, or a woman has multiple husbands, does not mean they all have to sleep together at the same time. That is not how it woks in Mormon polygamist relationships. In some cases they even live in separate houses.

reply to post by Swing80s


I love this "breaking down original marriage" narrative. There is nothing more humorous to me than an argument which paints ignorance in neon.

"Original marriage" is multiple wives. It is also marrying the girl you raped, marrying your dead brothers wife, marrying your daughter off to a rival warlord to seal a partnership agreement, and so on. The foundation of "original marriage" is the concept that women have no status outside what is granted to them by men.

That concept is dead here in the west, and it is never coming back, no matter how much some moon over it.