Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We have read on these boards many ways you could argue for one without arguing for the other.
|
Never once has anyone articulated even one way. Ty's argument is that polygamy is abusive to women, which is a weak argument because not only is that not true of every conceivable polygamous union, many heterosexual and homosexual monogamous unions are abusive toward women. I know of plenty of cases of wife-beating by men and by lesbian lovers, although it is not as common by lesbian partners. No one argues for banning heterosexual monogamous unions because they are more likely to be abusive towards women than a lesbian union is. So why does it make sense to ban polygamous unions because they are more likely to be abusive towards women than a monogamous union?
Now please, explain to me all those other differences that were pointed out. Please.
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If polygamy and incest are truly the concern, why not press for a constitutional amendment banning them instead of homosexual marriage? Wouldn't your polygamy/incest arguments still be valid? How would polygamy/incest be prevented by a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage?
|
Who is talking about incest? You don't need polygamy or marriage at all to have incest. That is a different issue.
BTW - Tom Green did not have an incestuous relationship. He married his step-daughter as did Woody Allen. Both are gross, neither are incestuous, one is a polygamist and the other is a monogamist. Incest doesn't go hand in hand with polygamy.
As for a constitutional amendment to ban certain types of relationships, I am not talking about banning relationships. I am talking about legally recognizing unions and conferring on the parties to the union government benefits and forcing employers to give out spousal benefits to those unions. That is what this argument is about.
BTW - The reason that I don't advocate for a constitutional amendment to ban polygamy is for the same reason I don't advocate that other religious practices be banned.
What on earth would be your rationale for banning polygamy but allowing both hetero and homo monogamous marriages? Explain to me what is it that would warrant allowing unions between 2 people regardless of gender that would also warrant banning unions of more than 2 people? No one has yet to articulate the reasoning behind that.
