The Battle Over Marriage And Other Matters Between Consenting Adults

I'm moving this from another thread to start a whole new discussion.



I've stated before that I feel the gay-marriage struggle is a slippery slope and here you have the next group waiting for their turn. If the gaus win the right to marry, next up will be polyamorous folks like Arcadia here. Forget NAMBLA, forget the pet lovers. Let's talk about polyamory. Many religions including Wicca, Islam, and Mormonism (while the main church has turned away from polyamory, there are still fundamentalists who believe in it) believe in polygamy.

Are we infringing on their freedom of religion by not legally recognizing these marriages? And, if we accept the argument from the gay community about their marriages, who are we to say polygamists are any less entitled. If we allow polygamy in this country as they do in other parts of the world, where do you draw the line? How many wives/husbands should one be allowed to have? Should there even be a limit?

What of the BDSM community? Say a slave wants to sell herself to her owner and legally become his property? These are two consenting adults. If one of them wants to be legally recognized as the property of the other, who are we to impose our morality on them? Shouldn't this be allowed? Shouldn't this woman (or man) be allowed to do with her body as she sees fit to include selling it?

These are not some far fetched, ridiculous scenarios whipped up for effect, these are real life issues that I have seen.

I'll tell you now, if the homosexuals win the right to have legally recognized marriage, the polygamist won't be far behind. There is already a huge polygamist movement in Utah, we have millions of Mulsims and thousands of Wiccans in this country.

Personally, if gays win the right to be married, I won't bother trying to stop what follows.

So the question is-what do *you* think?


-Kiamat Dusk

Polygamy and child marriage is coming soon? Sweet!...time to trade my old 25 year old for two 12 1/2's! I can start my own brownie troop!

I think government should have no say at all in marraige practices beyond the age of consent issue.

While certain marriage configurations would probably be a tax, or divorce court nightmare, it still should be a matter of personal choice.

If I want to marry the entire swedish bikini team, and they all agree, I should be able to. cause I really do want to...

I'm sure things could be ironed out quickly as far as multiple partner marraige agreements/contracts are concerned. There would almost certainly have to be pre-nups in all such cases, to resolve issues of custody, income, property, etc.

But should it be legal? You bet.

Men should be able to marry men, women should be able to marry women, and multiple people (more than two) should be able to marry each other.

All it should take is censensual desire to do so, and one would hope, love.

Government should stay out of our bedrooms and private lives, unless we are doing something to endanger others!

Well said, David. Thank you for getting us started on the right...er left...er whatever...foot.

-Kiamat Dusk

This IS a seperate issue, because "property" assumes that one is giving up all rights of choice, or consent, after the initial consent. So I can see how slavery in a legal sense would continue to be outlawed even if initially consensual. And if the slavery, or beconming property, can be "undone" merely by the slave or "property" deciding they want to call it off, why does it need to be recognized by courts? Why not just have it be a lifestyle choice as it is now.

If they want legal "rights" of a marraige, have them get married.

It's still two consenting adults. And property holds a completely different status than husband/wife. For one thing, the slave would fall under household goods and therefore homeowner's insurance vice the more expensive health insurance.

The argument has consitently been "let consenting adults do what they want so long as it isn't harming anyone else". If a person consents to becoming the property of another, how is that harming anyone else?

-Kiamat Dusk
Self-amusing

Well if this does happen in the US, the tax code will have to be re-written since it is all slanted towards married people popping out babies and being consumers and single people get bent over every time. Anyway, to make room for varied family structures in the tax code, the only fair thing to do is implement a flat tax. If pushing this agenda gets me a 10% flat tax, let start making signs and joining picket lines.



If any of this is going to occur I think all the perks for married people and families should be abolished and everyone treated equally by insurance companies and the federal government alike. Married people aren't special and don't deserve additional perks.

Generous of you

What is this anti-marriage kick you're on, Eboni!? Why do you hate marriage!? STOP TRYING TO SHOVE YOUR BIGOTED SINGLE LIFESTYLE DOWN OUR THROATS!!

Damn single people.

hehe

-Kiamat Dusk

That's me, Kendra. I'm a giver. I give until it hurts.

-Kiamat Dusk
Philanthropic Conservative

Whats wrong with polygamy if it happens between consenting adults? Some peole might like a regular menage a trois. As an adult shouldn't I be capable of deciding such things for myself?

As a Zen Buddhist, the whole notion of marriage as an insitution really rekkes of excessive attachement. Marrigae always seems to me as defining protery relationships. Be less attached to property and marriage will not matter.

Oh and if it is consensual, its not slavery.

Yes, I believe we would be. We're sort of in a pickle with that one. We, as a society, have to decide whether we will respect the freedom of *ALL* religions or not. We cannot do it half way, or your religion and it's freedoms may be ripe for infringment. It's simply not fair to say 'you cannot infringe on my religious freedoms' but practice and endorse infringment on another religions freedoms.


Slavery has been outlawed for obvious reasons. While I don't have any issue with someone wanting to be 'property' of another, maybe they should have to file some form with the local justice relenquishing themselves as 'property' of another individual - but there should be some safeguard to allow that individual to be released on thier own from ownership.

I love when people spin buddhism into whatever they want.

Well everyone's path to enlightenment is their own. I have always thought the notion of marriage was incosistent with the teachings of the buddha, and conflicts with my own understanding of zen. If I am tiwsting anything it is my understanding of marriage, not my understanding of Buhddism.

This is a specious and non sequitor argument. It presumes that other constitutional protections (such as those preventing slavery) can be arbitrarily usurped by entering into a marital contract. Gay marriage simply expands the audience to whom currently recognized rights and privileges are afforded.

First note that polyamory is not a tenant of the Wiccan faith. The ecclectic Wiccan tradition that predominates in the U.S. has no dogma for or against it. I believe the god and goddess have blessed my union, but I suspect most Wiccans are indifferent to polyamory.

Polyamory has been legal in large portions of the world for millenia (and practiced in the US without legal recognition). Social structures expand and adapt to accomodate it. The general rule is that one may have as many spouses as one can support, although that guideline may need modification in a social context where all partners bring home the bacon.

As for the BDSM question... it may be tangentally related to issues of consent, but the issues involved are different (to what extent can we volunteer to give up our rights? My employer has some odd notions on the matter...) It should probably be considered seperately.

just my two cents worth,I am under the impression that "marriage" is the religious version of "civil union", if a civil union entitles the couple to equal spose status of those who are married (not sure if under US law they are but you can help here) then homosexuals looking for normal rights like property, visiting in hospitals etc should start talking about civil unions NOT marriage as marriage is RELIGIOUSLY based and religions are bigoted against homosexuals.

What makes me agree with our right-wing friend is that term, homosexual marriage is not acceptable as the religion says it is not, and no one can argue with it, it's been written down, it's a religious law, so fuck it, you can't re-write the bible because you think it's unfair. What you CAN do in terms of fairness is have an equal, in terms of legality, bond but it is a civil union NOT a marriage.

The problem is with the words themselves, the Christians know their book says no homosexual marriage, but it doesn't say that homosexuals can't get the benefits of what marriage gives us today.

I'm sure, from friends and reading, that the reasonable homosexual couples want a fair system and I believe the first stepp would be to define it correctly so both sides are comfortable as 'marriage' means different things to different people.

By simply not calling it 'marriage' but a civil union you remove the religious bigotry somewhat. Render under Ceasar, if Ceasar says civil unions are fair then Christians must agree.

The homosexuals who INSIST on wanting gay 'marriage' are being selfish, you can't change the religion, BUT you can change the secular laws to make an equal-to marriage thing, and I believe that is what civil unions are.

If civil unions are not equal in terms of property/visitation etc then they should be, we all pay taxes and the constition protects homosexuality, but don't try and amend the Bible, wether it's bigoted or not, it is what it is.

If you meet the Buddah on the road, propose to him.

His answer might be enlightening.

Well said, Daz. I concur.

On the other hand, this is not a pro/anti-gay marriage thread. Otherwise we'll have Neehai in here and any level of civility will be lost.

Besides, we've hammered that one near to death.

-Kiamat Dusk
Neehai's wettest dream

Not all religion is Christianity.
Not all Christianity is homophobic.
Blessed be.

Arcadia,
Christianity is *not* homophobic.

Juro.

How do your feelings on freedom of religion extend to Sharia Law?

-Kiamat Dusk

if you meet the buddha, kill the buddha

I know love, but I'm generalising based on the culture I live in, the shrillest opponents to gay marriage are the fundementalist Christians in the USA and marriage started with a religious, mostly Christian, basis here. I know that some religions are tolerant and thank the Goddess for that!!

Marriage is *not* simply a religious event. Go to any county clerk office and you'll be required to fill out a form to get your MARRIAGE license, a civil union certificate is completely separate. Marriage is not, necessarily, a religious event.

Can we *please* leave the gay marriage thing in the other thread!? You gays had your time at the mic, now it's the polygamists turn. Sheesh.

There will be NO gay marriage! I will not allow it simply because Neehai wants it!

-Kiamat Dusk