DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/611670-polling-views-non-traditional-marriages.html)

slop101 06-27-13 01:04 PM

Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by creekdipper (Post 11745581)
I ask you...how many people who support homosexual marriage without equivocation on the grounds of equality would also embrace the same philosophical ideas toward other marital arrangements that fall outside of the norm. And, remember...if no one wanted to do it, there would be no laws prohibiting it.

What a bunch of nonsense. I enjoy eating cow flesh, so by your logic, I may eventually want to eat human flesh. Stop being ridiculous.

And those laws prohibiting things are usually there to keep harm coming to one of the parties involved.

MoviePage 06-27-13 01:13 PM

Re: Same Sex Marriage: 2018
 

Originally Posted by Vryce (Post 11745903)
I never understood the reasoning that if you support same-sex marriage that you have to support all these other marriages (sibblings, multiple spouses, dog/cat, inanimate object, etc) and if you didn't you are a hypocrite.

There's only one reasoning behind it, and everyone should already know exactly what that is. (Hint: it's not a pro-polygamy reasoning, nor is it an anti-hypocrite reasoning.)

maxfisher 06-28-13 06:57 AM

Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
It's no secret that any gay marriage thread here eventually sees creekdipper pointing out the hypocrisy of those who support it failing to support marriage for incestuous couples and polygamists. I'm curious how many folks here actually fall into that position.

Honestly, as long as it's among consenting adults, I really don't give a shit who people decide to sleep with or spend their life with. It's none of my business and, with the problems facing our country and the world at large, it just seems like an incredibly inane thing to get all worked up about. That said, I have heard somewhat rational, non-religious arguments against marriage for incestuous couples (birth defects) and polygamists (financial/tax implications). With gay marriage, every argument seems to be religious or it's icky. Anyway, vote, comment and discuss and maybe this side thread can help keep the gay marriage thread from it's usual derailment.

MoviePage 06-28-13 07:31 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
I voted the first option (Marriage legal for gays, incestuous couples & polygamists) because creekdipper's noble efforts in arguing the case for equal rights have finally brought me around.

RoyalTea 06-28-13 07:45 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
I don't really care what consenting adults do. I think one of the biggest issues with polygamy in FLDS communities is that these "secret" wives may not really be consenting nor adults.

As for the brother/sister or cousin/cousin marriages, if the problem is birth defects in children, but there are no children, where is the victim?

Scenario A: Two strangers (man and woman) meet, fall in love, and get married. One thing they both have in common is that they both had a single mother who got pregnant via artificial insemination. Unbeknownst to them, it turns out that the man's sperm-donor father and the woman's sperm-donor father were brothers. They had no idea at the time they met and fell in love, but they're genetically first cousins. Knowing that this might result in birth defects in their possible children, they adopt.

Scenario B: Two strangers (same sex) meet, fall in love, and get married. One thing they both have in common is that they both had a single mother who got pregnant via artificial insemination. Unbeknownst to them, it turns out that the one's sperm-donor father and the other's sperm-donor father were brothers. They had no idea at the time they met and fell in love, but they're genetically first cousins. They can't have offspring anyway, and choose to adopt.

Scenario C: Brother and sister spend their entire childhood fooling around with each other. They have the same mother and the same father and they fall madly in love with each other. Later, they discover that the sister was adopted. They're not genetically brother and sister, even though they spent their entire childhood thinking they were.

On what moral grounds does the government have to deny the validity of the relationships in situations A or B, but situation C is still cool?

RoyalTea 06-28-13 08:02 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
Also, in terms of financial "benefits," doesn't a married couple with 5 children get more "benefits" than a married couple with 2 children? And how would that compare to a polygamist couple of 3 people with no children?

If we are going to legally restrict a plural marriage because of the implications on "benefits," couldn't that same logic be used to be like China and restrict the number of children a married couple may have?

Groucho 06-28-13 08:23 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
I voted for "Marriage legal for gays, incestuous couples & polygamists". Realistically, I think the best we can do for polygamy (at least in the short run) is the decriminalize it...which I guess technically we're already doing.

Where I differ in opinion with creekdipper is that I don't think all of this has to be settled together before we can legalize same-sex marriage.

The real answer is to get the state out of recognizing marriages altogether, but that'll never happen.

JasonF 06-28-13 08:26 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
The problem with polygamy isn't nebulous benefits, it's very real issues like working out who gets to make medical decisions when Husband is in a coma and Wife A wants to pull the plug but Wife B doesn't. These are surmountable problems, but someone needs to put in the hard work of coming up with a rule set before polygamy can be legalized. And no, "The individual marriages can just make contracts" doens't cut it -- the whole point of marriage, from a legal point of view, is to set up a set of generally applicable default rules.

And while it's fine to say I have no problem with incestuous or polygamous marriages between consenting adults (I don't), recognize that consenting adults are the exception, not the rule in these situations. That may be because they are currently illegal, so the consenting adults who would do that otherwise get pushed into "traditional" marriages, but as it stands, the poster child for incest in 2013 isn't the cousins who fall in love, it's the man who rapes his daughter.

RoyalTea 06-28-13 08:31 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 11746965)
The problem with polygamy isn't nebulous benefits, it's very real issues like working out who gets to make medical decisions when Husband is in a coma and Wife A wants to pull the plug but Wife B doesn't.

Husband dies. Wife is in a coma. Her only living relatives are her two children. Her son wants to pull the plug. Her daughter doesn't.

How is that a much easier problem to solve than a man with two wives who have to make the same decision?

JasonF 06-28-13 08:35 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by RoyalTea (Post 11746974)
Husband dies. Wife is in a coma. Her only living relatives are her two children. Her son wants to pull the plug. Her daughter doesn't.

How is that a much easier problem to solve than a man with two wives who have to make the same decision?

OK, then -- solve it. Propose your rule set, and assume we can get it through the legislature, or get it adopted by the courts.

As I said, not an insurmountable problem, but you can't just hand-wave it away either.

RoyalTea 06-28-13 08:36 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
And even if those two situations are totally different and I'm missing the obvious, wouldn't an easy solution to the medical care (for polygamists) be making a living will a required document when filling out marriage paperwork?

Perhaps someone who gets married in their 20s checks one box and forgets about it and when he's dying in a coma in his 90s he may have changed his mind several times since then, but isn't that on him for not periodically updating his paperwork?

RoyalTea 06-28-13 08:40 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 11746981)
OK, then -- solve it.

Solve what? The man who's two wives have a different opinion on pulling the plug? Or the woman who's only two living relatives have a different opinion on pulling the plug?

Groucho 06-28-13 08:41 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
Seems like the easiest solution is that first spouse has automatic power of attorney. If you want to change that to another spouse, you have to fill out a living will. :shrug:

Bandoman 06-28-13 08:42 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
You forgot to include pets.

I don't care what two or more consenting adults want to do.

RoyalTea 06-28-13 08:54 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by Bandoman (Post 11746988)
You forgot to include pets.

Can pets consent? Maybe some higher primates who have learned sign language can.

sracer 06-28-13 08:57 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by maxfisher (Post 11746896)
It's no secret that any gay marriage thread here eventually sees creekdipper pointing out the hypocrisy of those who support it failing to support marriage for incestuous couples and polygamists. I'm curious how many folks here actually fall into that position.

Honestly, as long as it's among consenting adults, I really don't give a shit who people decide to sleep with or spend their life with. It's none of my business and, with the problems facing our country and the world at large, it just seems like an incredibly inane thing to get all worked up about. That said, I have heard somewhat rational, non-religious arguments against marriage for incestuous couples (birth defects) and polygamists (financial/tax implications). With gay marriage, every argument seems to be religious or it's icky. Anyway, vote, comment and discuss and maybe this side thread can help keep the gay marriage thread from it's usual derailment.

The arguments against polygamy and incestuous marriages are no more rational than the ones against same-sex marriages. It's simply that this point in time, those arguments are embraced as "valid". the arguments against same-sex marriage were considered valid up to the 70's and 80's. Times change.

financial/tax implications of polygamy? How is that any different than heterosexual marriages formed out of financial convenience? Or heterosexual roommates of the same sex getting married on paper for the financial and tax benefits?

birth defects in incestuous marriage? The potential for birth defects is currently a concern with non-related couples but we as a society don't prevent that. Even when high-risk couples get married, they aren't prevented from having children. Besides, with prenatal testing, they can have an abortion right up to moments before the baby is born.

You may try to fool yourself into thinking that there's a difference in the arguments against those other types of marriages, but those differences are nothing more than a reflection of YOUR current bias. If you were in favor of polygamy, you would find arguments against it irrational.

And why is "as long as it's among consenting adults" argument confined to sex and marriage? Why is prostitution illegal? Why is smoking marijuana illegal? Why is many forms of gambling illegal? Why can't people loan money to others at interest rates that they choose? Why can't people host their own lottery?

classicman2 06-28-13 09:04 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
How many times are we going to have a thread on this subject?

It seems to be the most burning issue for many of our members. I wonder why? IMO - there are far more important issues that this country faces other than this one.

Groucho 06-28-13 09:19 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
Yes, perhaps we can roll all the incest and polygamy threads together into a "one and only" thread? There's so many!

JasonF 06-28-13 09:34 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by RoyalTea (Post 11746985)
Solve what? The man who's two wives have a different opinion on pulling the plug? Or the woman who's only two living relatives have a different opinion on pulling the plug?

Solve the various ways in which the law recognizes the relationship between spouses is unique and therefore privileges the spouse in some way. The coma example I gave. Intestate inheritance. Testimonial privileges. And on and on. All of those were established under an assumption of a bilateral marital relationship and would need to be examined in the context of a multilateral marital relationship.

Groucho's "privilege the first spouse" approach might work, but then you have to ask: what is the purpose (legally speaking) of the marriage to the subsequent spouse(s)? Is it purely ceremonial, or does a second wife have some rights, but not as many as the first wife?

I don't really care what the answers are, but I do think we (as a society) need to establish answers before plural marriage can be viable.

VinVega 06-28-13 09:35 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by classicman2 (Post 11747009)
How many times are we going to have a thread on this subject?

It seems to be the most burning issue for many of our members. I wonder why? IMO - there are far more important issues that this country faces other than this one.

Well at least we have a thread to refer back to when someone brings out the "But what about Polygamy?!" talking points.

Pharoh 06-28-13 09:42 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 11747046)
Solve the various ways in which the law recognizes the relationship between spouses is unique and therefore privileges the spouse in some way. The coma example I gave. Intestate inheritance. Testimonial privileges. And on and on. All of those were established under an assumption of a bilateral marital relationship and would need to be examined in the context of a multilateral marital relationship.

Groucho's "privilege the first spouse" approach might work, but then you have to ask: what is the purpose (legally speaking) of the marriage to the subsequent spouse(s)? Is it purely ceremonial, or does a second wife have some rights, but not as many as the first wife?

I don't really care what the answers are, but I do think we (as a society) need to establish answers before plural marriage can be viable.

:up:


And I have never understood why we, as a society, can't treat the situations differently, even if they are logically similar.

RoyalTea 06-28-13 09:53 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 11747046)
Solve the various ways in which the law recognizes the relationship between spouses is unique and therefore privileges the spouse in some way. The coma example I gave. Intestate inheritance. Testimonial privileges. And on and on. All of those were established under an assumption of a bilateral marital relationship and would need to be examined in the context of a multilateral marital relationship.

Again, aren't these issues already in place when a widow(er) has two or more children as their only living relatives?

Nobody's suggesting that we make it illegal to have more than one child, are they?

Groucho 06-28-13 09:53 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
I have to wonder if coming up with a complex set of rules and regulations is necessary for a handful of polygamists? I still think we can decriminalize polygamy now, in terms of "Yeah, you can marry as many wives as you want but the state will only recognize the first marriage".

RoyalTea 06-28-13 10:04 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 

Originally Posted by Groucho (Post 11747074)
I have to wonder if coming up with a complex set of rules and regulations is necessary for a handful of polygamists? I still think we can decriminalize polygamy now, in terms of "Yeah, you can marry as many wives as you want but the state will only recognize the first marriage".

only recognize the first marriage in all situations, or only when there's some sort of conflict?

Mr. A has two wives B and C. Mr. A gets into a car accident. Do we say only wife B can visit him in the hospital room? Or does C get to see him, too? Assuming the room is big enough for more than one visitor at a time and that letting C into the room doesn't mean B can't fit anymore and has to leave.

Mr. A is a mob boss. The government thinks wife B and wife C are witnesses to his mobbery. They can't compel wife B to testify, but not compelling wife C to testify doesn't really affect wife B. If there's no conflict, should wife C be subpoenaed?

Groucho 06-28-13 10:07 AM

Re: Polling Views on Non-Traditional Marriages
 
With both same-sex and polygamy legal, I think the mob bosses best option is to marry everybody in his organization.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 PM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.